PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Low Energy Technology

Philip Hollobone: What steps he is taking to promote low energy light-emitting diode technology.

Joan Ruddock: The Government fund the Carbon Trust to work with business to increase energy efficiency and administer the enhanced capital allowance scheme for energy-saving technologies. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform stimulates innovation through a photonics knowledge transfer network, providing support and guidance for manufacturers, especially small and medium-sized businesses. Both those schemes are relevant to low-energy lighting.

Philip Hollobone: LED lights are super-efficient and emit virtually no heat, so they can help to reduce carbon footprints and fire risk, yet they are not included on the energy technology list to which the hon. Lady has referred. Would she be kind enough to agree to meet me and my constituent, Mr. David Linger from Kettering, who is an expert on the issue, to discuss the matter further?

Joan Ruddock: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the value of LEDs, and I can tell him that a new energy technology criteria list will be published, probably in a couple of months' time. Some white LEDs will be on that list. Products that meet the criteria will be eligible to be put on the energy technology product list, which in turn makes them eligible for enhanced capital allowances. ECAs are administered by the Carbon Trust. That is really important, and I suggest that he ask his constituent to get in touch with the Carbon Trust as soon as possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment would be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituent.

David Taylor: The attraction of LEDs is, of course, that 70 per cent. of the energy is converted to light, but unfortunately only 20 per cent. of the light normally escapes the bulb. What assessment has the Minister made of the potential of nanoimprint lithography to improve that ratio and make bulbs more effective, and what are the Government doing to support that new, growing industry, which has great potential to save the energy that is spent on light, which is a major consumer of energy?

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is a well-known expert in the field, and he asks us many questions on the subject. As I have said, LEDs are potentially extremely valuable for their energy efficiency. We have a nanotechnology working group—

Gregory Barker: It's a small group.

Joan Ruddock: It is very small. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) that LED technology is part of our considerations, and will continue to be so, because we think that it has great potential.

Kingsnorth

Adam Holloway: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the environmental impact of the proposed new coal power station at Kingsnorth.

Hilary Benn: I regularly discuss energy policy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, but the decision on Kingsnorth will be for him to make, and I cannot comment on what he might decide, for reasons that I know the hon. Gentleman will understand. The environmental impact assessment is an important part of the process.

Adam Holloway: But does not the Secretary of State think that that undermines any policy commitments to low-carbon technology?

Hilary Benn: I simply say that no decision has yet been made on the Kingsnorth application, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware. We need to develop carbon capture and storage technology across the world, which is why I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is currently the only European Union country that has a competition on the go to demonstrate that technology on a commercial scale. With China building one new coal-fired power station a week, and with about 8 GW currently in construction in Germany, we need that technology to work, and I am sure that he will welcome the project.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will know that carbon capture technology is vital for our long-term future, but will he make sure that all of us in this country recognise that coal is our main indigenous energy source, and that without it, the lights will go out? We cannot ever have that happen.

Hilary Benn: Coal is currently responsible for a significant proportion of our electricity supply, and certainly a very large proportion of lights around the world are kept burning because of coal. That makes the point that if we are to make progress in reducing global emissions, we have to make progress on significantly decarbonising electricity production from coal. That is why the technology that we are talking about is needed.

Martin Horwood: Surely this goes to the heart of joined-up Government thinking on climate change. Given that the right hon. Gentleman's fellow Secretary of State resisted amendments to the recent Energy Bill to mandate carbon capture and storage for new coal-fired power stations, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether DEFRA was consulted before that line was taken on the Energy Bill by his fellow Secretary of State? If the right hon. Gentleman was consulted, what did he tell the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform?

Hilary Benn: Nobody has yet been able to make carbon capture and storage technology work on a commercial scale. What is the sensible way to proceed? It is to demonstrate that it is possible to do that on a commercial scale. As the Prime Minister said in his speech in November, once that is shown to work, countries will have a decision to make about whether they wish to mandate carbon capture and storage technology, but we have to show it working on a commercial scale. I hope the hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, will welcome the fact that the UK is leading on trying to get one of those projects up and running.

Bill Olner: My right hon. Friend knows, further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), that we have a sea of coal underneath England. We need to exploit it and we need to get back to a better place than where the Tories left us when they closed down all the coalfields. Clean technology is available that can get the coal out of the ground and raise up communities again.

Hilary Benn: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes about the depth of feeling in those communities about what happened. The fundamental truth is that the remaining fossil fuels that we have on this earth, whatever form they take, will need to be carefully used in a way that does not add to the problem of global warming. We all understand that that is the case, and finding ways of doing that is the solution to making progress.

Bob Neill: Does the Secretary of State accept that his answer will cause great concern to many residents in north Kent and in adjoining parts of south-east London, including mine, where there has been a consensus about the need for low-carbon technology and carbon capture in any new power station developments? It seems troubling to them that the Secretary of State has adopted a course that could open the door to development at Kingsnorth without a commitment to that carbon capture, in their backyard.

Hilary Benn: No decision has been taken on Kingsnorth yet, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. That decision is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The point that I have been making to the hon. Gentleman and to the House is that we need to develop carbon capture and storage technology and to show it operating on a commercial scale. That is why we are going ahead with the project.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State mentioned the global context and China, but what message does it send to the world if we on the one hand go around lecturing it about the need to reduce carbon emissions, and on the other teeter on the brink of ushering in the first new unabated coal-fired power station for a generation? Does that not sound like hypocrisy? Is it not fossil politics?

Hilary Benn: I simply say—and I hope the House will bear with me when I say it again—that no decision has been taken yet in relation to Kingsnorth.

Gregory Barker: Dithering.

Hilary Benn: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who intervenes from a sedentary position, first, E.ON itself has asked that no decision be taken while consultation takes place on carbon capture readiness. That will happen in the summer. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, E.ON has put the Kingsnorth application into the competition as well. Those, I should have thought, were two things that he would welcome.

Greenpeace

Andrew MacKinlay: When he last met representatives of Greenpeace; and what matters were discussed.

Hilary Benn: I met representatives of Greenpeace on 7 January to discuss climate change, energy and the Marine Bill, and on 28 February and 2 June together with colleagues to discuss international climate change. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), also met Greenpeace representatives on 12 May to discuss the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

Andrew MacKinlay: In any of those meetings since May, did Greenpeace raise with Ministers the fact that Sizewell B's nuclear reactor was closed down—"unplanned" was the word used by the official spokesperson for the industry—and that when the spokesperson was asked why and what the circumstances were, no statement was forthcoming? Is it not time that Greenpeace and the House were told what the circumstances relating to the closedown of the Sizewell B reactor in May—unplanned?

Hilary Benn: To the best of my recollection, that issue was not raised in the meetings to which I referred. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will take note of the point made by my hon. Friend.

James Gray: In the meetings that the right hon. Gentleman had with the director of Greenpeace, did he hear the director of Greenpeace say, with regard to vehicle excise duty, that that
	"is the kind of measure that gives green taxes a bad name because it does not change behaviour"?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the Treasury projections for the income from VED increasing exponentially over the years demonstrates that it is nothing to do with changing people's behaviour, and that it is in fact to do with raising more taxes? If it was to do with changing behaviour, presumably the income from it would decline over the years to some kind of vanishing point. Is there not a fundamental disagreement between his Department and the Treasury on the subject?

Hilary Benn: The director of Greenpeace has not raised that issue with me in the meetings I have had with him, but the purpose of the changes put into the Budget was to make us all more aware of the CO2 emissions of our vehicles—both newly purchased and existing ones. Is it unreasonable in the world in which we live that that factor should be taken into account?

Denis MacShane: Does not Greenpeace support the idea that we have to rethink the way in which we use our cars and that taxation must play a part? I have argued for a counter-cyclical rebalancing of the fiscal state expenditure ratio to put more through taxes in the pockets of lower and middle-income earners, but on cars we have to wean ourselves gently off these Tory gas guzzlers and stop warming up the environment just because it suits the car lobby represented on the Conservative Benches.

Hilary Benn: The high price of petrol and diesel, because of the high price of oil, is bringing us face to face with the resource crunch. I think that every Member of the House acknowledges that. We wish to have the mobility that having a car gives us, but what will really be incentivised is more research and investment into non-polluting forms of car use, particularly electric car technology—and the sooner that comes, the better.

Gregory Barker: The Conservatives strongly agree with Greenpeace that an ambitious roll-out of microgeneration should be a key part of the UK's climate change strategy, but to make that happen, we must have a comprehensive system of feed-in tariffs. On 20 February, before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State himself, like many on the Labour Back Benches, strongly supported the role of feed-in tariffs, so why did he roll over and allow DBERR to squash feed-in tariff amendment to the Energy Bill?

Hilary Benn: I do think that we should look into feed-in tariffs, which is why I welcomed the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy earlier this year and why I welcome the fact that this matter will figure in the renewable energy strategy consultation that is shortly to be published. The evidence from other countries shows clearly that we should be looking at ways of encouraging microgeneration. The renewables obligation works very well for big renewables, but we need to find a way of getting more to happen at the domestic and community level. I look forward to that consultation, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, too.

David Chaytor: When the Secretary of State meets Greenpeace on the next occasion, will he put on the agenda the question of peak oil? Is that not really the elephant in the room? If it is true, as BP says this week, that given the growing demand from China, India and other newly industrialising countries, there may be only four decades of oil left in the world and we are about to reach the peak, is it not necessary that everybody understands that? We need to generate a much deeper public debate about the finite nature of oil reserves.

Hilary Benn: In the light of the questions asked this morning, the director of Greenpeace is going to have a very long list of issues to be raised when we next meet. I agree completely with my hon. Friend that we are coming face to face with the consequences of rising demand and finite resources. As we plan for the future, it will be very difficult for lots of people as they try to cope with the consequences. That reinforces the case for taking action to prepare for a low-carbon economy; it is not an argument for putting it off.

Pig Sector

David Heath: What recent assessment he has made of the profitability of the pig sector.

Jonathan R Shaw: Estimates of pig farm incomes were published in January. The sector's profits have been particularly hit by feed price increases. The average commercial pig farm is expected to show a loss of income of around £4,100 for the period between March 2007 and February 2008. Pigmeat prices have risen steadily in 2008. If that continues, we expect to see a partial recovery in profitability over the next 12 months, although global harvests and feed prices remain a key factor.

David Heath: The pig industry is entering a crisis that goes well beyond cyclical variations. Even with the improvements in prices, the pig farmer is losing an average of £12 for every pig, with losses for pig farmers this year likely to total £170 million and more than 50 per cent. of the national breeding herd lost. Given that, is there not something extraordinary about the fact that supermarket prices are going up, and the primary producers are not benefiting? Yet again, is there not something seriously wrong with the supply chain which the Government would do well to look into?

Jonathan R Shaw: We do recognise the difficulties faced by the pig industry, and DEFRA works closely with the British Pig Executive. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Rooker attended a meeting this week. The pig industry has mounted a campaign, and I attended its conference in Norwich last week. I had a clear message for the supermarket suppliers, which attended the conference: they must take care of the primary producer. When Asda produces a pack of sausages for 16p, that does not help the primary producer. We must support the pig industry's campaign. I am sure that all hon. Members will do so, because it produces a fine product and its animal welfare is good. We recognise that feed prices are an issue not just for British pig farmers, but for European pig farmers across the board, who also attended the conference. We are working closely with the industry and we hope to see prices increase. The hon. Gentleman makes his point about the primary producers well.

Ian Cawsey: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. I attended the British Pig Executive emergency meeting in the House earlier this week to discuss this very matter. I realise that my hon. Friend is working hard on the issue, but may I encourage him to ensure that public procurement includes British pork and pigmeat products? I know that contracts have to be tendered, but if he could include animal welfare standards in the specifications, that would not only receive wide public support, but ensure that British pig farmers across the country reaped the benefit of the fine standards on their farms.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course we cannot restrict where people purchase their food from in public procurement, but we can put high welfare standards into the contracts. Many European countries will have high welfare standards, but I am sure that the British pig industry is confident that its standards will be as high as any other, if not higher.

Richard Bacon: Farmers were very pleased to see Lord Rooker at the meeting earlier this week. We all thank him for taking the trouble to attend, and we know that he takes the industry seriously. The Minister mentioned that it was not possible to restrict purchases, but it is possible to improve labelling. Since there is already a requirement for the country of origin to be labelled for fresh fruit, vegetables and beef, does he agree that there is no legal impediment to having the same for pork and pork products, and that that would bring a significant extra benefit for British farmers?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are seeing improvements in labelling. Supermarkets and independent stores are increasingly using the strength of local purchase. One can often see pictures of the farmer and the farm that the produce came from. That helps the consumer to make informed choices. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that new food information proposals have come forward from the European Community that, in the case of meat, would require the countries of birth, rearing and slaughter where these are not the same. I hope that those proposals will go some way towards addressing his concerns. The Food Standards Agency is consulting on the matter. I am sure that he and other hon. Members who are concerned about the pig industry, as well as the industry itself, will make a contribution to that consultation.
	We have to support the pig industry, which has run an excellent campaign called "Stand By Your Ham"—perhaps hon. Members have seen the video, which is based on the Dolly Parton song and features leading members of the industry, including the fine gentleman Stewart Houston, chairman of the British Pig Executive. We do not want him to give up his day job and start singing—his singing is perhaps not up to Dolly Parton's standards—but we do want him to continue leading the pig industry, which we need to support. We hope that we see better times this year and in years to come.

Roger Williams: With the contraction of the British pig herd, more and more pork products are imported into this country, yet 70 per cent. of those imports are not up to the animal welfare standards that we expect in this country. If the Minister could do something meaningful for the pig industry in this country, it would be to ensure that pork is produced throughout Europe to the same high standards as in the UK.

Jonathan R Shaw: We have led in Europe on welfare standards, and the industry will highlight that in encouraging people to purchase its products. At the conference that I attended in Norwich, we were joined not only by the supermarkets but by animal welfare organisations saluting the good work of the British pig industry, as well as by pig producers from other European countries. We want to ensure that there is a level playing field and that other countries catch up with our lead.

Food Supply

Tony Lloyd: What assessment he has made of the implications for the security of the UK's food supply of recent changes in world food prices.

Hilary Benn: The UK's food security depends on a strong UK agricultural sector, diversity of supply and good trading links, particularly with our EU partners. We are currently more self-sufficient in food than we were 50 years ago, but we do need to respond to changing circumstances. I therefore intend to publish in the near future a consultation paper on ensuring Britain's food security.

Tony Lloyd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. The 2006 DEFRA study of food security relied essentially on the fact that the UK is a rich and open economy, and talked about reliance on world markets. The world is changing, however, and food prices have gone up, with the poorest people in the world and in Britain suffering most. Some of the world's producers are beginning to consider restricting exports of food stocks. In that changed environment, is it not vital that we consider what technology can do domestically, and the possibility of self-sufficiency or at least increasing local supply to guarantee security, particularly for the poorest people in our country?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As circumstances change, we must be prepared to respond in the right way. Ultimately, it would be difficult to close ourselves off entirely from the rest of the world, because it is not just a question of the supply of food but of inputs such as fertiliser and oil to plough the fields and do lots of other things. The House will welcome the fact that our self-sufficiency rose slightly last year from 59 to 61 per cent. for all foodstuffs, and from 72 to 74 per cent. for food that we can grow. We need to take into account all my hon. Friend's points.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman be mindful of the need for food security in the medium and long term when he enters further discussions on common agricultural policy reform? Until such time as farmers in the UK can trade on the world market at reasonable prices, it would be very foolish to cut away the financial assistance that they currently receive.

Hilary Benn: We want the farming sector to be strong and profitable and to produce for the market. We should welcome the recent rise in prices for a number of products, albeit that some sectors have had difficulties because of the increased cost of grain. We are seeing the market respond to increased prices with increased production. That might mean that the recent big spike in world prices will decrease in the years ahead, but not come down to the previous level. We need to ensure that the common agricultural policy supports that process. Europe is 90 per cent. self-sufficient in food, and we import no more than 30 per cent. of our food imports from any one European country. Therefore, we have a diversity of supply, which puts Europe in a strong position to support itself.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but does he see an important role for local food chains now, and particularly for the idea that people should produce food at home as well as purchase it? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the importance of the garden, which has been underestimated, and in particular about reassessing the role of allotments, because many people would grow their own produce but have not had the opportunity to do so?

Hilary Benn: I agree completely. The year of food and farming is in part about doing precisely that, not least encouraging some of the younger generation to understand that food grows not in supermarkets but in fields, allotments and elsewhere. I think that there is a growing interest in where food comes from—the point raised in the earlier question—which can be seen in the growth of farmers' markets and the efforts that some supermarkets are making to link the products that they sell with the farmers who have produced them. We should welcome that.

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State gave a relatively reassuring response to the lead question, but does he not agree that the lesson to be learned is that we still should produce more of the food that we need here in the United Kingdom? In that regard, will he ensure that the Government do not penalise the farming industry through increased taxation, not least increased vehicle excise duty, because vehicles such as 4x4s are essential for farmers to transport livestock? Will he further encourage the superstores not to increase their profitability but to ensure that they treat the farming community in this country more fairly?

Hilary Benn: On the first point on farmers' resources and the fuel that they use in their vehicles, of course they benefit from red diesel, which currently provides a significant amount of support. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about vehicles. On supermarkets, farmers want a fair price for the product that they produce. That is why I think that the whole House will welcome the fact that we have seen an increase in prices relating to milk, beef and sheep in the past few months, which is one reason why many in the farming industry are looking at the future with greater optimism than for some time.

Rob Marris: With a growing world population, growing world per capita consumption of food, the adverse effects of climate change and the pressure from biofuels, are the UK Government going to rethink their position on genetically modified crops?

Hilary Benn: The Government's position remains that we should follow the science, and that is what we have done throughout. One particular issue that I raised at the recent meeting of the Environment Council is the speed at which the European Union gives approval for new varieties of GM products to come into the EU. That is highly relevant when it comes to animal feed. A considerable amount of GM soya comes into the country and is fed to animals already. One concern is that prices are higher than they might otherwise be because of the slow approval process in the EU. We should go with the science and the advice on safety, but it is important that, acting in the light of those two things, we provide support to farmers who want to purchase those products to feed to their animals.

James Paice: If the Government are finally taking food security seriously, I am genuinely looking forward to the paper that the Secretary of State says he is going to publish.
	Recently Lord Rooker admitted that Ministers took their eyes off the ball as far as the imposition of the integrated pollution prevention and control charges was concerned, on pigs and poultry in particular. What assurances can the Secretary of State give us that his eyes are firmly on the ball as far as two imminent issues are concerned: the proposed gold-plating by his Department of the nitrates directive and the proposed regulation of plant protection products, currently in Europe, which by his own officials' estimate could reduce yields of domestic food production in this country by up to 30 per cent.? Will he tell us quite clearly not only that his eyes are on the ball, but that he will stop those things happening?

Hilary Benn: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my eyes are very much on the ball. In relation to the second of those two issues, I raised that very point at the recent meeting of the Agriculture Council. The problem at the moment is that not enough of the other member states of the European Union seem to have woken up to the implications of what is being proposed. The United Kingdom is in exactly the right place in arguing the case that we have put and to which he refers.
	On the first issue, we have had a consultation and will be responding in due course. We are very mindful of the implications of the nitrates directive for farmers, but I am also very mindful of the report just published by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which says what I think we all know—that the rest of Europe has done it and we need to get on with it.

Fuel-poor Households (Hemsworth)

Jon Trickett: What steps his Department is taking to promote energy-efficient measures among fuel-poor households in Hemsworth constituency.

Joan Ruddock: The Government have implemented nationally a number of measures to promote energy efficiency, such as the Warm Front scheme and the carbon emissions reduction target, which is an obligation on energy companies. Both schemes offer a range of insulation and energy-efficiency heating measures to vulnerable households who may be at risk of fuel poverty, and the community energy efficiency fund supplements those schemes in an area-based approach.

Jon Trickett: I am grateful for that response and for the Government's work taking fuel poverty seriously. In the Minister's constituency, like mine, many people are struggling to pay their fuel bills at the moment, so whatever the Government can do will help. Does she agree that the private sector could be encouraged to do more? Fuel bills charged by energy companies recently increased by 15 per cent., yet Centrica, for example, subsequently reported a 500 per cent. increase in profits, which caused much anger. Could private sector companies do more to help those who are fuel-poor partly as a result of the price increases?

Joan Ruddock: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are extremely concerned about high energy prices. As the Prime Minister has said, we are constantly examining ways in which it may be possible to assist.
	The carbon emissions reduction target requires energy companies to deliver improvements in domestic energy efficiency. More than half of that investment, which is equivalent to about £1.5 billion, will be directed at priority groups—those on low incomes, the disabled and the elderly—covering everyone over 70 years of age. We must remember that all domestic consumers pay in the long term for the carbon emissions reduction target, so there is a limit on what the Government can do in further imposing on the energy companies. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that the companies act, because some voluntary contribution to meeting the considerable need at this time to assist the most vulnerable with high fuel prices would of course be extremely welcome.

Julie Kirkbride: I welcome the Government's efforts to deal with fuel poverty today, in Hemsworth and elsewhere, but what are the Government doing to tackle fuel poverty in the future by creating renewable sources of energy in social and affordable housing, which would address some of our climate change problems and provide a complete answer to fuel poverty among poorer households?

Joan Ruddock: The renewable energy strategy consultation will be released very soon. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government are paying a huge amount of attention to renewables. We are implementing more offshore wind energy than any other European country, and we are also examining many other ways in which more renewable energy can be produced. All that would benefit low-income households, because we are talking about national supply. The Government will continue with their programmes to help those who are most vulnerable and we are exercised about the fact that we need to ensure that poor people can afford to keep their homes warm and keep themselves healthy.

Lynne Jones: What is my hon. Friend's view on the adequacy of the budgets for the schemes that she has mentioned, and for the decent homes initiative, in order to bring about the increase in energy efficiency that is commonly seen in Scandinavia, for example? Does she share my concern about the adequacy of the grant maxima under Warm Front? That inadequacy is leading to many poor people having to make top-up contributions to obtain energy-efficient installations.

Joan Ruddock: Hon. Members have made many representations to my ministerial colleagues on the adequacy of Warm Front and the capital limit, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister for the Environment has assured me that he is examining the limits, because we are aware of the issue. Taken together, Warm Front and CERT will deliver much more money for energy efficiency for the domestic consumer than in the previous three years, and we are already considering a strategy for beyond 2011.

Steve Webb: The Minister mentioned Warm Front and CERT, but in constituencies such as Hemsworth, there is a household-by-household approach, with individuals applying and each company trying to find customers in different streets in the area. She mentioned area-based approaches. Should they not be the dominant approach? Is it not far more efficient to take a whole estate or neighbourhood and sort out its energy efficiency, rather than having one van going to one house, and another van going to another?

Joan Ruddock: As I said, there are area-based schemes, and the Government have been piloting such schemes with local authorities. I visited a scheme only this week where the process is on an area basis, not household by household. We are learning from this experience; the schemes will go on for another three years, and are now self-sustaining. We will be able to apply those lessons elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman has a point, but at the moment there is sufficient scope for people to apply and to get the energy efficiency products and services that they need through the two schemes that we have in place.

Climbing (Coastal Areas)

John Mann: What discussions he has had with the British Mountaineering Council on access to coastal areas for climbers.

Jonathan R Shaw: We have held a number of discussions with the British Mountaineering Council on access to coastal areas for climbers. We issued a draft Marine Bill in April which includes provisions to improve public access to the English coast.

John Mann: The Minister will be aware that Britain is one of the world centres for sea cliff climbing, with England alone having more sea cliff climbing than the entirety of the east and west coasts of the United States. Does the Minister agree that the way in which the British Mountaineering Council has managed wildlife restrictions over the past 40 years, in co-operation with conservation bodies, has worked well and is working well?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am aware of the code of practice of the British Mountaineering Council, which ensures that its members are aware of nature conservation. It is important that we preserve sensitive and fragile biodiversity systems which are commonplace around our coast. The British Mountaineering Council is ambitious about increasing the opportunities to climb, and there will be more when the draft Marine Bill comes into being. We want to strike a balance between people's access to climb cliffs and the preservation of important and sensitive nature conservation areas.

Richard Ottaway: Under his brief of access to coastal areas the Minister is responsible for the "Discovering Lost Ways" project. As he knows, a number of pilot schemes are under way, which are getting seriously bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape. Can he explain to the House what has gone wrong and how he will sort it out?

Jonathan R Shaw: There was not a great deal of discovery of those ways, to put it bluntly, so we have stopped that project. We will bring together all the relevant stakeholders to see where we go from here. The concern has been that the lost ways will be scrapped under the 25-year rule. We will not do that until we consider them properly; they are important bridleways and routes of access through our countryside. We will bring together the relevant stakeholders, and work with our agents, Natural England, to find a way forward to discover the right way.

Climate Change Bill

Tobias Ellwood: What recent representations he has received on the provisions of the Climate Change Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: This year, we have received approximately 50,000 representations from members of the public, stakeholders and others on the Climate Change Bill. Most representations are campaign based, offering support for the Bill and encouraging the Government to strengthen it.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that reply. The Government grabbed the headlines by stating that they would cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. That is an interesting date, because there will probably have been a general election by then, and the Secretary of State will not be in post to be accountable on those figures. Therefore, could I ask him to give the House an update before 2010 on the progress on meeting those targets? Does he agree that it is not just a matter of having long-term objectives? To keep the Government accountable, it is appropriate to have interim targets as well.

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—despite the somewhat unkind premise of his question—that it is important to measure progress, but the 2010 target was always very ambitious. On the basis of current trends, it seems likely that we will achieve about a 16 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990. As he will know, however, the United Kingdom will be one of the few countries to meet the Kyoto commitment; indeed, we will probably almost double it.
	As for interim targets, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment had to say when he introduced the Climate Change Bill on Monday. I greatly regret that I could not be present on that occasion. We will set out an indicative range so that we can measure our progress year by year, bearing in mind that five-year budgets are sensible.

Eric Illsley: It has been well flagged up that the Climate Change Bill will include a clause relating to the banning or restricting of plastic bags. Before the Government embark on that route, if indeed they are planning to do so, will my right hon. Friend listen to representations from the packaging and film manufacturers? Having banned plastic bags, we do not want to turn to far more damaging materials, including imported materials such as jute and hemp.

Hilary Benn: Of course we will always listen to representations. We propose to take a power requiring those who issue single-use bags to charge for them. Let me be frank: environmental impact is an issue, but 13 billion of these things are distributed every year, and they are a symbol of a throwaway society. Public attitudes are changing. One big supermarket, Marks and Spencer, has recently reintroduced charges. We should not forget that 20 or 25 years ago most supermarkets charged for plastic bags. This is an important symbolic step. We hope that the industry will be able to demonstrate progress itself, but we will have that power, and if we do not see that progress we will use it.

Topical Questions

Andrew Gwynne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: The Department's responsibility is enabling us all to live within our environmental means. I am pleased to report that as of yesterday, under the single payments scheme, the Rural Payments Agency had paid £1.396 billion to farmers. That equates to 96.27 per cent. of the estimated total fund, and means that the agency has met all its payment targets for the 2007 scheme. I congratulate the agency's staff on their efforts. I can reassure the House that they will continue to work hard to ensure that all outstanding payments are made as quickly as possible.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. Given that the most important issue facing him as Secretary of State, us as Members of Parliament and society as a whole is climate change, and given that the United Kingdom is leading the way with the Climate Change Bill, what recent discussions has he had with his counterparts around the globe to ensure that other countries are doing their bit as well?

Hilary Benn: I have recently visited the United States of America, attended the G8 Environment Ministers meeting in Kobe, Japan, been to South Korea, and had discussions with the Indian Science Minister, Mr. Sibal, who leads on climate change. I can summarise those discussions very simply by saying that there is a growing recognition of the need to act. How we construct a deal between now and Copenhagen so that enough contributions can be put on the table to enable us to make progress, in return for finance to help the developing and emerging economies pay for low-carbon development, is the central question that we face in our negotiations, and we all have a part to play in that regard.

Michael Jack: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not mind my expressing my disappointment to the Secretary of State that no Minister or official from his Department attended the world food summit in Rome to make a DEFRA contribution to the agenda. Some three and a half months ago, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced its report on managing bovine TB. The Secretary of State wrote to me asking whether he could have a little more time than the usual two months in which to reply to the report, so that a comprehensive policy could be developed and subsequently published. Has that work been completed, and will the Secretary of State assure me that it will be published shortly? Will he also make certain that the Select Committee has sight of his reply first, and that the contents are not leaked into the public domain?

Hilary Benn: I am very happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I have taken the Select Committee report—and, indeed, this problem—very seriously, and we will publish our response shortly. On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, as I am sure he is aware, the Government were represented at that conference by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.

Linda Riordan: Many of my constituents are worried by stories they are being told that their families could face huge bills for rubbish collection. What plans do the Government have for allowing local councils to charge for waste collection?

Joan Ruddock: I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend's constituents have been worried about the possibility of huge charges. There have been scare stories in the tabloid press—fuelled, I am sorry to say, by a spokesperson from the Conservative party—that there could be charges as high as £1,000 a year. There is absolutely no truth in those stories. The Government plan to allow up to five local authorities to pilot incentive schemes next year. They would allow local councils to establish rebates for those who recycle most and to impose charges on those who recycle least. From the continental experience, we know that the right level for an incentive to influence behaviour would be about £50 a year. Any money—

Nicholas Winterton: It is a tax.

Joan Ruddock: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not akin to a tax; it is technically a tax, but actually any money— [Interruption.] No, he should listen carefully. It does not behave like a tax. Any money that the local authority collects is returned to the residents. There is no revenue for the local authority. There is no revenue for the council in these schemes. They are revenue-neutral. Local authorities—primarily Conservative ones—have sought these schemes, and in polls the public say that they would be fair.

Bob Russell: In what year did the Government begin consulting on their proposed national noise strategy and, so as to get a topical answer, when will the national noise strategy be published?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He and I were founder members of the all-party group on noise reduction, and I am sure he will wish to join me in paying tribute to Val Weedon, who recently stepped down from her post at the UK Noise Association, where she did a lot of good work.
	Since I was appointed to my post, I and my officials have been looking into the matter the hon. Gentleman raises. He will be aware that we published the noise maps, on which the Department did a huge amount of work. That was one of the largest IT projects ever undertaken, and it was successfully achieved. I was the Minister responsible, and it worked; it all went very well. We must concentrate on the noise strategy, and I hope that I will be able to bring it forward within the year.

Peter Ainsworth: May I return the House's attention to something that not only looks like a tax, but acts like a tax? Can the Secretary of State confirm that under the Chancellor's planned changes to vehicle excise duty the increase on a small car such as a Nissan Micra will be larger than on a Hummer? Does he think that that is green or socially just? We all know that the changes in vehicle excise duty will raise more than £1 billion to fill the black hole left by the Government's incompetent handling of the economy, but will he remind us of the Treasury's forecast of the cut in vehicle emissions resulting from the changes?

Phil Woolas: As ever, the hon. Gentleman presents only part of the story. He fails to point out that since the fuel duty escalator was abolished in 1999, revenue from transport taxes has fallen by 13 per cent. in real terms. I hope he agrees.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister is obviously incapable of telling the House what estimate the Treasury has made of the carbon reduction benefit of this new tax. I can tell him that it is less than 0.5 per cent. of all emissions from road transport. When he next meets the Chancellor, will he remind him that the most environmentally unfriendly thing that can be done is to dress up stealth taxes as green taxes and hope to get away with it, because the people of Britain are not stupid? We want to see changes in the public's attitude and behaviour, so will he tell the Chancellor that the only way in which attitudes change when the Government dress up stealth taxes as green taxes is that people dislike the Government even more than they do already?

Phil Woolas: What this exchange shows is that the hon. Gentleman knew the answer to his own question, and that exposes the fact that his motive in asking the question was to score political points, not to elicit information from us. I shall ask him a question in response: whatever happened to his policy that the polluter pays?

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister reassure those of us who live on the Thames estuary about the integrity of the flood barriers and the capacity of those communities to withstand a possible surge from the North sea? There is growing concern that there does not seem to be an initiative to have a new Thames barrier to the east of London.

Phil Woolas: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In the studies of the Thames barrier, and flood and tidal protection for the Thames basin, we are actively working on that 70 to 100-year plan to ensure that the defences are in place. That includes consideration of a second barrier.

Peter Bone: I do not doubt the Secretary of State's green credentials, but is he concerned that the closure of so many driving test centres across the country and the centralisation of such facilities into a few centres will create millions of additional and unnecessary car journeys, thus increasing CO2 emissions? Was it not unfortunate that the Government did not get a derogation from the European Union on this matter, as other countries did?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman asks a very reasonable question. Of course, a reconfiguration of centres and depots can create extra journeys, but what one finds on other occasions—our Department studies these traffic patterns, along with the Department for Transport—is that over time they even out. For example, the M4 bus corridor, which was opposed at the time by Conservative Members, has proved to be a success. However, we will have to examine the point that he has made.

Hugh Bayley: Since the big flood in York eight years ago, the Government have improved the flood defences for Rawcliffe, and Aquabarrier Systems Ltd has designed a flood barrier for Clementhorpe, which it has given to the city. When will the Environment Agency start work on improving the flood defences for Leeman road? When the water rose, 1,000 people and 700 soldiers toiled through the night to build a sandbag wall that was 1 km long. It protected 1,000 homes from flooding, but a permanent flood defence is now long overdue.

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest and his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. As he knows, the Environment Agency uses a risk-based approach to developing flood-risk projects, and, as a result, other work in his constituency has gone ahead before work in the Leeman road area. Many hon. Members will be familiar with that area, which is next to York station. A study of the flood risk in that specific area is being carried out, and the Environment Agency aims to report back in July. That will identify the options for flood-risk reduction, and the agency has set aside an allocation of £314,000 in its budget to progress any work identified.

Alan Reid: The EU's proposals for recording individual sheep movements are completely impractical on hill farms. Recording each individual sheep movement is not necessary for disease control or food safety purposes, and recording batch movement would provide equally good results. Will the Government assure the House that they will do all they can to get the EU proposals amended so that they will be practical to implement on hill farms, which might have hundreds of sheep—perhaps even more than 1,000?

Jonathan R Shaw: We know that sheep hill farmers are an important part of their communities. They help to ensure that we have the wonderful grazed landscapes that we all enjoy, but we need to ensure that the regulations do not have a disproportionate effect on our country, given that we have more sheep than most of the other European countries put together. We are working hard on that issue and when we are able to make an announcement, we will obviously do so.

Ann Cryer: Further to the remarks by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about the new vehicle excise duty proposals, is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents appreciate the potentially positive impact that the proposals could have on the environment? However, is he also aware that many of my constituents are anxious about the retrospective nature of the proposals, in that a family might have bought a large but cheap second-hand car and will find that it will cost them a great deal of money?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend's point is well understood. Some of my constituents—and I am sure that it is the same for hers—have been worried that the word "retrospective" implies that they will have to back-pay. I know that she understands that point, but I just wish to clarify it. It is not unusual for taxes to be retrospective in the sense that she describes, but the Chancellor is well aware of the point that she makes.

Philip Dunne: The Secretary of State referred to the excellent report published earlier this week from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the nitrates directive. Does he recognise that the directive will place a significant financial burden on livestock and dairy farmers, and does he agree with the Committee and the Environment Agency that English farmers need similar financial assistance for the construction of slurry stores as is provided to farmers in Wales and Scotland?

Hilary Benn: To tell the truth about the nitrates directive, if we were starting afresh it probably would not look as it does now, but it was agreed a long time ago and I am not going to take responsibility for it —I was not around at the time. Having said that, we have consulted on what we need to do, because we must make progress. I am very conscious of the pressures that it will place on farmers, and that is why we will respond in due course to the Committee's report. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has been looking carefully at the issue so that we can try to minimise the impact while at the same time ensuring that we honour the requirements that Europe has placed on us. I have been keen to push anaerobic digestion, because that might be a way to provide some assistance.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 16 June—Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 17 June—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on the Government's plans for polyclinics followed by a debate on sentencing policy and the early release of offenders. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 18 June—A general debate on European affairs.
	Thursday 19 June—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on defence procurement.
	Friday 20 June—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 23 June will include:
	Monday 23 June—It is expected that there will be a statement on the European Council. Opposition day [11th allotted day] [second part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Sale of Student Loans Bill.
	Tuesday 24 June—Opposition day [unallotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) Order 2008.
	Wednesday 25 June—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning Bill.
	Thursday 26 June—A general debate on the draft legislative programme.
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
	I wish to take this opportunity to inform the House that it is my intention that the subject for the topical debate on 3 July will be Zimbabwe. It may also be helpful to Members if I inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen will open the new Session of Parliament on Wednesday 3 December.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and I probably share the feelings of the entire House in thanking her for the debate on Zimbabwe. I am sorry that it is only a one-and-a-half hour topical debate, but it is good that we will be having a debate on Zimbabwe in the House.
	Last weekend, the number of troops killed in Afghanistan reached 100 and yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on Afghanistan. The Prime Minister said that he was willing to keep the House informed. When will we have this statement?
	Following last evening's vote to give away civil liberties, there has been much speculation about what promises the Prime Minister had to make to win. So that hon. Members might be better informed before the debate on 24 June in the name of the Democratic Unionist party, can we have a statement from the Northern Ireland Secretary on the Government's plans for expenditure in Northern Ireland?
	Talking of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, on Tuesday, Members had only three hours to discuss 16 new clauses and about 60 amendments covering crucial issues such as post-charge questioning and control orders. That has become a regular practice. Ministers tabled at a late stage 218 new amendments to the Planning Bill and the sheer number of late amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill meant that major changes to the criminal law and to sentencing were not debated in the House. It is the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Lady to manage the business of the House, but it is becoming clearer with every Bill that is mishandled that she is struggling. Will she make a statement to explain what she is doing to ensure that important issues are given proper time for debate?
	I have previously asked why the Government delayed publication of the poverty figures until after, first, the local elections and then the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. Now we know why. The number of children in poverty rose last year and the Government are even further away from meeting their child poverty target. Can we have a debate on the issue as a matter of urgency?
	On 18 March, the Minister for Women announced a £1 million emergency fund for rape crisis centres faced with closure but, four months later, no rape crisis centre under threat has received a single penny of that money. So, can we have a statement from the Minister?
	This week, the Governor of the Bank of England said that we were facing
	"the longest period of financial turmoil"
	in memory, yet the Treasury has been characterised by dithering and U-turns, not least on the 10p tax fiasco. There is little wonder that the director general of the CBI has said the Chancellor has "lost it" on tax policy. Can we have a debate, in Government time, on restoring confidence in the Treasury?
	Can we have a debate on leadership in government? Since the Prime Minister came to power, the number of working days lost to stress-related illness in the civil service has increased by almost 11,000. Unsurprisingly, one of the two Departments where less time is being lost due to stress is the Treasury, which the Prime Minster left last June. Perhaps his reputation for upsetting secretaries, throwing mobile phones at the wall and reducing his closest advisers to tears is not the best way to boost staff morale. As the only other Department where time lost due to stress fell is the Foreign Office, perhaps the Prime Minister should ask the Foreign Secretary for lessons on leadership.
	Finally, can we have a debate on management technique in government? It is today reported that, according to Downing street insiders, the Prime Minister's "Don't panic" message to motorists was deliberately designed to achieve the opposite effect and to get people to panic buy fuel. [Hon. Members: "What?"] Yes. Perhaps in Brown's Downing street army, when he, like Corporal Jones, says "Don't panic, don't panic", his Cabinet hear the words of Private Frazer—"Doomed. We're all doomed".

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about Afghanistan, and we all express our condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the fight against the Taliban. We must remind ourselves of the progress that their heroic work has helped to secure. The Prime Minister reminded the House yesterday that only 2 million children were in school in Afghanistan when the operation started, but that the figure is 6 million now, 2 million of them girls. We need to make progress on tackling the Taliban for the sake of the people of Afghanistan and because of the threat that their terrorism poses to the world. Statements to keep the House updated will be made as and when they are appropriate. I know that the Prime Minister addresses those matters whenever they arise at Prime Minister's questions on a Wednesday.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about yesterday's debate and vote on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I say again that the Government's concern is for the safety of people in this country and for the protection of our civil liberties. The Bill was scrutinised by the Select Committee, there was extensive debate in the House, and now it goes to the Lords. I ask her to spare us her crocodile tears over civil liberties: we introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 against opposition from the Conservatives, who plan to abolish it. That legislation is one of the most important defences of civil liberties to have gone through the House in recent years.
	The right hon. Lady raised the question of the programming of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and of Bills more widely. It is important not to rewrite history, so I remind her of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said about the programme motion:
	"At the start of the process, quite properly, the usual channels asked for two days on Report rather than just one—they asked for and were given that, because of the importance of the matters covered by the Bill. Within that, they asked that one day be given over...for a full day's debate on one clause."—[ Official Report, 10 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 172.]
	That request was also granted. There was discussion through the usual channels, and exceptional arrangements were made for a very important debate.
	As for child poverty, there has been a substantial fall in the number of children being brought up in poverty since this Government came to office in 1997. However, we are determined to step up the momentum and that is why we have introduced further measures to bring even more children out of poverty. Last Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families gave evidence on child poverty to the Select Committee, and next Monday the House will consider the Children and Young Persons Bill. That is a stark contrast to what happened under the Conservative Government, when there was a relentless increase in the number of children being brought up in poverty. I therefore regard the concern expressed by the right hon. Lady to be entirely phoney—as with so many of the issues that she raises.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about rape crisis centres. It might be a good idea if I had a further discussion with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Justice and for the Home Department, after which I shall write to the right hon. Lady with an update on where we have got with the extra funds that have been made available for distribution to rape crisis centres. I shall place a copy of that letter in the House of Commons Library.
	As for the financial situation, I think that we all acknowledge that it is difficult, both in this country and internationally. We will take action at national and international level, make sure that we support the resilience of the economy and focus on what we can do to help family finances.
	The right hon. Lady made what I think was intended as a joke about fuel supply, in respect of the tanker drivers' industrial dispute. It is a serious issue and it is important to state two things. First, it is important that people do not fill their tanks more quickly than they would otherwise, thereby creating a problem of supply in petrol stations. Secondly, we express our hope that the two sides in the dispute will come together and reach an agreement swiftly.

Mary Creagh: Last summer, the Law Commission recommended reform of the law relating to cohabiting couples to avoid expensive and protracted court cases after the breakdown of a relationship. In March this year, the Ministry of Justice announced in a written ministerial statement that it would not change the law but that it would await the results of the introduction of the law in Scotland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend urgently hold a meeting with me to discuss that decision with Resolution, the family law representative body, and the Ministry of Justice to see what we can do to speed up reform to avoid thousands of people being left destitute each year when their relationship breaks up?

Harriet Harman: May I suggest that my hon. Friend has a prompt meeting on that important issue with the Secretary of State for Justice? I undertake to arrange that as soon as possible. My hon. Friend has raised the issue consistently over a number of years. I welcome her back to the House after her maternity leave, and congratulate her on a truly gorgeous baby.

Simon Hughes: I join the Leader of the House and the Conservative shadow Leader of the House in their tributes to our troops in Afghanistan. Many of our constituencies have seen people go to fight there, and we know the risks. Many of them have made the supreme sacrifice. We are proud of them.
	On the matters the Leader of the House announced, will she—before the debate in the name of the Democratic Unionist party—put in the Library a record of all the meetings between Ministers and DUP Members since the Easter break, to save us all having to spend lots of public money on freedom of information exercises? We will then know exactly when the meetings happened, with whom and on what subject.
	On the announcement about the next Queen's Speech, can the Leader of the House confirm that the date for the new Session of Parliament is extraordinarily late? Is it not probably the latest start in normal times ever—certainly for the past 25 years? If so, is it an indication that the Government anticipate considerable difficulty in dealing with their legislation after the summer break? In that context, what is now the expected time in the Government's programme for Royal Assent to the Counter-Terrorism Bill?
	May we have a debate on relations between the UK and China? I have asked for one before, and it is obviously more and more important as the Olympic games come down the track. I hope that the Government will accept that it is important that the debate happens before the summer break.
	Linked to a question put by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), may we have a debate on what is clearly the continuing widening gap between the rich and the poor? When I put to the Chancellor that the gap is now evidenced by the statistics, he refused to confirm or deny it, but the statistics are clear. I hope that the Labour party is still committed to narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, so can we debate on why that is not happening?

Alistair Burt: No, it is not.

Simon Hughes: If it is not, why not? It used to be. That may be why the Labour party is not as popular with its core supporters as it was in the past.
	On internal House business, the Leader of the House obviously has plans to put to the House proposals for Members' pay, pensions and allowances. I understood that Sir John Baker was due to report to the Government in May, although we have heard nothing of his report. May I assume that he did report in May and that the report is ready? If so, can it be published now and will the Leader of the House confirm—specifically following the comments made yesterday by the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—that whatever view the Members Estimate Committee comes to, an independent body of authority will confirm that it is acceptable not just to Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, but to those who monitor the public interest outside this place, so that we are not in the embarrassing position of the House deciding on something that is immediately thought inappropriate by those outside who look after standards of public life?

Harriet Harman: On the point about meetings between Ministers and others, there are processes, by way of parliamentary questions, whereby information can be elicited. Such questions should be answered promptly and accurately, and a similar process applies with freedom of information requests. There are processes for asking about meetings that have taken place and what happened at them. The hon. Gentleman knows that civil servants are not present at all meetings with Ministers.

Michael Penning: Why not?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), like all Members, will have been in meetings with Ministers where civil servants have not been present.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the date on which this year's debate on the Queen's Speech will be the latest ever. No, it will not be. In 2000, it took place on 6 December, so this year's date is not the latest. He also asked when the Counter-Terrorism Bill will receive Royal Assent. There are very important measures on that most important of issues, and I hope that the Bill will go through the House of Lords, return to this House and receive Royal Assent promptly. Of course, we want it to have proper scrutiny, but we also want to ensure that those important new laws are on the statute book.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about UK relations with China. There is an opportunity for him and other Members to raise further points when Foreign Office Ministers take oral questions on 24 June.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the gap between the rich and poor. Of course, we remain committed to a more equal society and to narrowing the gap between rich and poor. If he looks at our public service agreements, which embody the objectives for work that takes place throughout Departments, he will see a number of PSAs that require action throughout the Government to narrow the gap between rich and poor in relation to educational and health outcomes and to income.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) says, "It's not working." I just ask her to look at the relentless and growing trend of inequality between rich and poor and the growing number of poor people under the Government of whom she was a Member. I am prepared to— [Interruption.] At least the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has been consistent on the issue. I am happy to answer his question, but I shall move swiftly on to Sir John Baker's report.
	Sir John has reported and I strongly thank him for the work that he has undertaken at the request of the House. Our resolution on 24 May asked him to look into the question of MPs' pay. On the question of publication and debate, we are committed to debating the Baker report and to making decisions about an independent mechanism for reviewing pay, including a new comparator. We have made a commitment that the House will have an opportunity to debate these issues and to make decisions before the House rises for the summer recess. We are determined that the report should be published in enough time to give Members time to consider it and to propose any amendments that they would like to make to it.
	Bearing in mind, however, that we also aim to debate the report on allowances from Mr. Speaker and the Members Estimate Committee, we thought it would be convenient for the House to debate that report at the same time as the Baker review—on the same day—so that the House could deal with all the issues at once. As we would like the reports to be debated on the same day, it would also be convenient for the House if we published the MEC and Baker reports on the same day. That is our objective. It might not prove possible, but in any event, we will go ahead and publish the Baker review to ensure that Members have enough time to consider it and to produce their amendments.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked about independent scrutiny of the Members Estimate Committee's proposals to the House. That has been the subject of much debate within the Committee—particularly among the three Committee members to whom the whole House owes much for the great deal of work that they have done. They have consulted Members, and the question is how we ensure that we have not only the right structure to pay for our offices, travel and London accommodation, but proper investigation systems, so that any misuse of those structures and any abuse of the system can be rooted out. Members have been debating that point with MEC members, and there has been discussion with the National Audit Office. The proposals will then return to the House. Once the MEC report is published, everybody, including the Committee on Standards and Privileges, will be able to look at it, and then it will come back to the House for a full debate and a decision.

David Winnick: As someone who, needless to say, is very pleased that the Labour party has been in office for 11 years, and who certainly wants to avoid the nightmare of a Tory Government, may I ask whether the Cabinet should not carefully consider whether it is wise to go ahead with the 42-days measure, knowing that the Lords will certainly reject it and that there will then be ping-pong between the two Chambers? Perhaps a statement could be made at some stage. Should not we all be united against the terrorist danger instead of having controversial and divisive measures that serve no purpose at all?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be united against the terrorist danger. The Government are determined to ensure the safety of the British people as well as to protect civil liberties. It was on that basis that we put our Counter-Terrorism Bill before the House. It was accepted last night and it will go through the proper processes of debate.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The right hon. and learned Lady is aware that the Government have made proposals to allow money to be spent on swimming and on swimming pools. That is to be welcomed—to tackle obesity and for many other reasons. However, in Minehead in west Somerset, we have had to lose our only public pool, for two reasons: first, the building is unfortunately not up to the job that it is meant to do; and secondly, the district council—which is under no overall control, so there is no political gain from my question—has neither the money nor the ability to reopen the pool in the near future. The Government quite rightly want to encourage people to swim and older people to continue to swim, yet for reasons outside our control we cannot do so. Therefore, would it be possible to have a debate about that issue, which is important not only to my constituency, but, I suspect, to many others throughout the United Kingdom?

Harriet Harman: There has been a substantial increase in central Government funding to local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman raises a point about swimming which is very important. Swimming is part of a major programme and we want to ensure that it can take place in all areas, so I suggest that he seeks a meeting between himself, his local council and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Clive Efford: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there was some coverage about the topical debate on knife crime last week. By their very nature, topical debates are important to our constituents, but the debates have a problem, because, often, not many Members can participate in them, hence the coverage that last week's debate generated. Will she consider reviewing how we arrange topical debates so that more Members can participate and so that the media cannot distort what goes on in the House by suggesting that Members on both sides of the House are not in tune with what goes on in their constituencies, or do not share their constituents' concerns?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about topical debates. He is a champion of work against antisocial behaviour and criminality in his local community. I confirm to him and the House that we are reviewing the operation of topical debates, which have only recently been introduced. Several points have been raised, including not only how we choose the topic, but at what time during the week the debates take place. I shall report to the House before the summer recess. The question of the day on which they are held is under close review.

Adam Price: The Government continue to reject the call for compensation for veterans who suffered as a result of their participation in the British nuclear weapons tests in the Indian and Pacific oceans in the 1950s. Instead of paying expensive lawyers to defend the indefensible, could we have a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can hear Ministers' reasons for continuing to refuse that group of ex-servicemen the apology that they so obviously deserve?

Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State for Defence and his team of Ministers will be answering oral questions on Monday; I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue then.

Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the horrible events at her family home at the weekend were a timely reminder to all Members that to confuse openness about our expenses—something that I thoroughly support—with the exposure of addresses of Members of Parliament is a mistake, and one that we should absolutely resist?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we want to make sure that public money is properly spent and that we are open with the public about how it is spent. However, the question of the publication of Members' addresses raises an issue that is fundamental to the role of hon. Members in this House. No Member should have to make a choice between saying in the House what they believe to be right, and fearing for their and their family's safety because of the publication of their home address. We will defend the right of all hon. Members to speak openly. That means that, while we are open about public spending, we do not put the addresses of hon. Members' London homes in the public domain.

Andrew Murrison: Last week the Leader of the House indicated, but understandably could not confirm, that there would be no rule change that would have the effect of allowing the disposal of defence estates to accrue to devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Since then we have had last night's important vote and the rumours surrounding it. Will the right hon. and learned Lady arrange for the Chancellor to rule out categorically any Treasury rule change that, whatever the merits of increased spending in Northern Ireland, would have the effect of a defence cut?

Harriet Harman: Treasury questions are not until 10 July, but the hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to make his points in the Democratic Unionist party Opposition day debate or the defence procurement debate, which takes place on Thursday next week.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that later this afternoon we will discuss opposed private business relating to the control of illegal street trading, including that of peddlers. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has pursued my right hon. and learned Friend assiduously on the issue, but I make no apologies for joining the hue and cry.
	Given that the measures enjoy cross-party support and that councils and the police are having to put huge amounts of time and effort into tackling these issues, as well as lobbying us in this House, and given the time that we Members spend on the issue, is it not time for the Government to provide at least a legal framework that gives councils the discretion to introduce the powers when they think they are necessary, to protect local consumers and legal traders?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I am sure will be amplified in the debate later and considered closely by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for arranging a debate on Zimbabwe, although I am a little saddened that it will come after the rerun of the presidential election in that country and that we are not able to emphasise the importance of a large number of election observers there to see that the election is free and fair.
	I have a question for the Leader of the House about future business. Will she produce a report for the House to consider on the processes of programming and selecting topical debates? I believe that there is a requirement on both sides of the House for those processes to be reviewed, and I hope that a review of both will be announced by the Leader of the House in the relatively near future.

Harriet Harman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the fact that I intend the House to debate Zimbabwe on 3 July. I know that he was able to make the points that he so often makes in the House at a meeting earlier this week with Lord Malloch-Brown, who briefed hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords on Zimbabwe. I know that Lord Malloch-Brown found it useful to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in Zimbabwe.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that programming was considered in detail by the Modernisation Committee, which reported on it in 2006; there is no reason to look again at the issue now. As far as topical debates are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are reviewing their operation. There is still an opportunity to make points to that review before I make my report, which will happen before the House rises in the summer.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the fact that there is to be a debate on polyclinics next Tuesday. Will my right hon. and learned Friend advise me whether it would be in order to refer to the British Medical Association petition presented to No. 10? I am sure that many people, including my constituents, were misled into signing that petition because they were told that general practices, particularly in rural areas, would close as a result of the changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and I met the North Lincolnshire primary care trust representatives, who said categorically that the funding for the new clinic in Scunthorpe is additional and that not a single practice is under threat. Will it be in order to emphasise that point in that debate?

Harriet Harman: It certainly will be. We are pleased that the Opposition have chosen the issue of polyclinics and GP services for the Opposition day debate. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that people are very concerned about primary care services. It is important that they should not be subjected to misinformation; that issue particularly concerns vulnerable and elderly people.
	My right hon. Friend is right—we are talking about new, additional money. Some £250 million was announced last autumn for new GP-led health centres in every PCT area; that comes on top of the existing GP provision. Furthermore, there will be additional, new GP surgeries in the most deprived areas. That situation is different from that in London, where there was a long-term review, with a proposal for polyclinics that is the subject of discussion by PCTs in London today. My right hon. Friend is right: we are not imposing anything anywhere. We are, however, demanding high standards, greater access and good premises. We are supporting that with more funds and higher pay, and next Tuesday there will be not only an Opposition day debate but oral questions.

Michael Penning: May we have a debate in Government time about compensation for members of our armed forces who have been injured in action? I know that the Ministry of Defence is currently reviewing the amount and type of compensation given to our brave servicemen and women. However, before that is put into practice, may we have a debate on the Floor of the House so that hon. Members can say how we feel our servicemen and women should be treated if they are injured?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity shortly to raise that issue in MOD questions; in the meantime, I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence.

Ian Cawsey: Following on from the previous question, my right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt be aware of comments about pay and conditions for our military. The Prime Minister announced that there would be a White Paper to consider that issue and the military covenant, on which the Royal British Legion has been campaigning for some time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that when that White Paper is published, the House will have an opportunity to discuss it so that we long-term supporters of the covenant will get the chance to have our say?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend reflects concern across the House on those issues. I will make sure that when the White Paper is forthcoming, we consider opportunities for it to be presented to and debated in the House.

Douglas Hogg: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Northern Ireland Secretary will make a statement early next week on the financial and other implications of the agreement made yesterday with representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies? It is quite plain that, aside from the pressure exercised on Labour Back Benchers, an awful lot of English pork is being shovelled into a very large Northern Irish barrel. We have a right to know something about the detail of that so that we can judge the propriety—I use my words carefully—of the influences that were brought to bear.

Harriet Harman: Like everyone in the whole House, the Government remain committed to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. That is the work to which the Government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his team of Ministers are committed. I deplore the smears and disgraceful slurs and allegations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made. He ought to know better.

Phyllis Starkey: A number of hon. Members, including me, have been raising various issues related to the beauty industry—issues ranging from nail bars to tattooing and tanning salons. We have been expressing our concern about the health aspects. There is a problem, however, in that the matter crosses a number of areas—the health of customers, the occupational health of employees, trading standards and the licensing systems of local government. Will the Leader of the House consider how the House could look at all those different aspects of the beauty industry together, rather than our having to try to pick them off one by one?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I would add the Department of Health to the list of Departments concerned. Sometimes, the people receiving such so-called beauty treatments end up with their health being jeopardised. Perhaps I might have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss how we could take the issue forward so that the House can be given the opportunity to debate it, and so that we can bring together ministerial action on the issue.

Alan Reid: May we have an urgent debate on the proposals of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to slash the number of tax offices, and close all three in my constituency? The proposals would mean that my constituents would have to travel long distances for a face-to-face meeting with a tax inspector—over 100 miles in some cases. They also mean the loss of an awful lot of experienced tax inspectors. That is no way to run a fair and efficient tax collection service. The proposals should be withdrawn.

Harriet Harman: We want to make sure that HMRC operates as efficiently as possible, and that administration costs are kept to a minimum. More and more people are dealing with their tax matters online, but there is still an important role for face-to-face meetings, which the hon. Gentleman mentions. In respect of his constituency, I suggest that he seek an Adjournment debate on the matter.

Andrew Gwynne: In 2008, is it not appalling that sports and social clubs in my constituency still can, and do, discriminate on grounds of sex? Is it not about time that we had a debate on the subject in the House, with particular reference to mixed clubs that treat male members differently from female members, so that we can discuss how to bring about more equality in sports and social clubs?

Harriet Harman: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to equality, which I share. He will know, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and other Members in the House do, that we will bring forward an equality Bill. Later this month, I hope to be able to set out to the House what the Bill's provisions will be, but I can say that the Bill will ensure that clubs that offer membership to both women and men will no longer be able to discriminate against women; they will have to treat men and women equally.

Bernard Jenkin: May I press the Leader of the House a little further on the question of statements from the Prime Minister on the strategy for Afghanistan, as did my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House? We last had such a statement on 12 December, which is nearly six months ago. On that occasion, the Prime Minister gave us the broad strategy for winning Afghanistan in the long term, but since then I have obtained a paper from the Foreign Office, which I will place on my website this afternoon, and which demonstrates that things are not going according to plan. We are winning militarily, but we are in big trouble strategically. Only if the Prime Minister shows real leadership on the issue, and explains time and again to the British people and the international community what we are trying to achieve there, will we succeed. Will he show that leadership by making a statement to the House?

Harriet Harman: I do not accept that we are in big trouble strategically. There is international action, in which we are joining together with other countries. The hon. Gentleman may know that there is a Westminster Hall debate on Afghanistan next Tuesday. However, I know that there is concern on the issue across the House, and I will consider how we can find an opportunity to debate fully the important work of our troops, and those from other countries, in Afghanistan.

Ann Cryer: May we have a debate on the recent proposals to give additional money to carers to access respite care? Those carers will take up that money only if they can be assured of good quality care in residential homes. The excellent series on the Radio 4 "Today" programme last week on residential homes did not do anything to inspire confidence on the issue.

Harriet Harman: The series of programmes to which my hon. Friend refers—I agree that they were excellent—put the spotlight on an issue of growing concern. Over the next 20 years, the number of people aged over 85 is set to double. We are all concerned to make sure that those in residential or nursing homes have the best institutional care, and that those who are with their families are able properly to be supported by them, and that includes respite care. I will bring my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health, and to the commission that the Government have set up to advise us on those important issues.

David Gauke: May we please have a statement on Government policy on Cuba? I know that the Leader of the House considers Fidel Castro something of a hero, and she may be pleased that it is reported this morning that Government policy on sanctions against Cuba may be changed as a consequence of buying off a couple of rebels on the 42-day detention vote. How does she think our allies will view foreign policy if our policy on Cuba is to be changed as part of a grubby deal to buy off a few Labour Back Benchers who are sympathetic to left-wing dictators?

Harriet Harman: Fortunately, I think I can rest assured that our allies will take no notice of the sort of points that the hon. Gentleman raised, and neither will I.

HMS Tireless

Bob Ainsworth: I should like to inform the House of the outcome of the board of inquiry on the incident on board HMS Tireless in March last year, in which two members of the Royal Navy—Leading Operator Maintainer Paul McCann and Operator Maintainer Anthony Huntrod—tragically lost their lives. Another member was seriously injured. Uppermost in our minds and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are the families and friends of those killed and injured, to whom I would like to reiterate our deepest sympathy at this very difficult time.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence felt that the House should be informed of the outcome at the earliest opportunity because of the tragic nature of the incident, and because it is clear that the Ministry of Defence must bear responsibility for it. Indeed, the Secretary of State would have preferred to have made the statement personally. However, the need to complete the work required to release the board of inquiry, the commitments of the families and his need to attend a NATO meeting of Defence Ministers, at which important issues relating to operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo will be discussed, made that impossible. In those circumstances, I hope the House will understand his asking me to make this statement.
	I would like to pay tribute to the very high levels of professionalism shown by all those involved in the incident on HMS Tireless, which, as revealed by the board of inquiry, should serve to reinforce our confidence in the willingness and ability of our armed forces to uphold the highest standards of behaviour and display extraordinary bravery in life-threatening situations. This is something of which we should all—especially the families—be justifiably proud.
	The House will know that the purpose of a board of inquiry is to establish the circumstances of an incident and to learn lessons from it to prevent a similar incident from occurring. A board of inquiry does not seek to apportion blame. We have done everything that we can to establish the causes of the incident, so that we may learn the lessons from it. Running parallel to the board of inquiry, which was extremely thorough, there has been a full investigation carried out by a police taskforce, led by the Royal Navy police special investigations branch. That comprised military investigators and civilian detectives, and was assisted by the UK Forensic Explosives Laboratory and NASA in the USA. Those highly experienced investigators independently investigated the incident, and their findings are consistent with those of the board of inquiry.
	The board of inquiry set out the background to an explosion in the forward escape compartment of HMS Tireless on 21 March 2007, while she was undertaking an exercise under the ice near north Alaska. The explosion caused the death of two of the ship's company and filled the forward end of the submarine with smoke. Small fires followed the explosion which, had they taken hold and a major conflagration ensued, would have had even more serious consequences. Instead, however, the extensive training and preparation undertaken by all submariners proved their worth, and owing to the professional conduct of the ship's company, and in particular the stamina and presence of mind of one member, who was already seriously injured, the incident was rapidly contained. The integrity of the submarine and the power plant remained secure at all times.
	The board concluded that the explosion was caused by a self-contained oxygen generator—a SCOG—which had been wholly appropriately activated by one of those who lost their lives. It has not been possible to determine beyond doubt what caused the oxygen generator to explode. However, the board did identify the most likely cause as significant internal contamination of the generator's canister with oil, probably enabled by cracking within the canister solids. Organic contaminants are a known hazard for these oxygen generators, which are manufactured with protective seals, but cracking had not been previously identified as a contributing risk factor. In the event, the board was not able to establish how any contamination occurred, but oil would certainly have been present in the submarine environment, and this, it says, is the most likely cause of the contamination.
	The board of inquiry has exposed an inadequate appreciation of the risks of contamination and a number of shortcomings in the logistic handling of these generators. The shortcomings identified include SCOGs being left, unprotected, on the dockside and SCOGs being stowed on board submarines in a manner that left them at risk of contamination. The board of inquiry also found that there were a number of SCOGs that had previously been earmarked to be taken out of service which were returned for use on submarines. This was achieved by changing the paperwork. The board established that it could not be known for certain whether any of these SCOGs subsequently ended up on HMS Tireless.
	These events are unacceptable and it is clear from the board of inquiry, and other work to date, that the Ministry of Defence must accept responsibility for what happened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I therefore consider that it is right for me to apologise unreservedly, on behalf of the Department, for the actions or omissions that contributed to this tragic incident. I am extremely sorry, particularly to the families of those who lost their lives, and to those who were injured.
	We have already investigated whether any of the shortcomings were such that criminal negligence was involved. The Crown Prosecution Service has advised that the evidence does not support a prosecution, although it directed that the Health and Safety Executive must be made aware of the findings. This has been done and the Health and Safety Executive will now examine the reports and recommendations and see whether an investigation is required under its own powers.
	In addition, the Defence Equipment and Support organisation is carrying out a detailed investigation into the acquisition, manufacture, storage, submarine stowage and logistic management of SCOGs, to ensure that any further lessons are identified. Given that ongoing investigation, the House will understand that at this stage it would not be right for me to comment in detail on issues that remain the subject of an investigation.
	We have taken urgent action to seek to ensure that there is no recurrence of this tragedy. All the board of inquiry's recommendations have been accepted and have been, or are being, implemented. In addition, we put action in hand immediately after the accident to minimise the risk associated with oxygen generators. Their use has been tightly restricted to an emergency-only basis since the incident. These emergency oxygen generators are stowed separately and handled less frequently on board a submarine than those that were assigned for routine use.
	All emergency oxygen generators have been inspected for any signs of damage or possible contamination since the incident. This is to ensure that risks are minimised, should oxygen need to be generated in the unlikely event of an emergency situation. Developments have already been made to upgrade the design of the canisters further to reduce risks, and we have already started to replace the emergency stocks with an upgraded design. We are also working towards developing an alternative solution to meet future operational requirements.
	It will never be possible to eliminate every risk to those who serve our country in our armed forces so selflessly, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I do and will continue to do everything we can to minimise those risks wherever possible. I will make copies of the board of inquiry report available in the Library of the House. Action continues to implement its recommendations. I will update the House as further developments emerge.

Julian Lewis: I begin by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement and of the board of inquiry report. That is a long, detailed and thorough document which does not pull its punches. It is not surprising that it took longer than the originally anticipated four months to complete, but can the Minister explain why it has taken fully 15 months to complete, for the information not only of the House but above all for the families of those who lost their lives?
	Paragraph 15 of the report states:
	"Despite careful handling within service channels, the story broke in the media before all the next of kin had been informed and before . . . staff had been able to contact the next of kin of the remainder of Tireless's crew."
	Can the Minister throw light on how that happened, and explain to the House what safeguards have been agreed with the media on not reporting military fatalities before the families have been told, and whether such safeguards were flouted on this occasion?
	The report concludes:
	"If it had not been for the outstanding efforts of"
	the third crew member, the one who was injured,
	"the consequences of this incident may have been much worse".
	In the light of that, does the Minister wish to revise the statement by a Ministry of Defence source, reported on 22 March 2007—two days after the incident—that
	"the vessel was never in any danger"?
	Also reported early last year, soon after the incident occurred, was the tribute paid by Commander Breckenridge, the commanding officer of the submarine, to the crew member who was
	"injured by the initial blast and thrown to the deck . . . recovered himself despite his injuries, placed an emergency breathing mask on his face and, in complete darkness and zero visibility due to the smoke, extinguished the numerous small fires in the compartment and allowed access to the fire-fighting and medical teams."
	The report reveals that owing to the buckling of the bulkhead doors, it took 44 minutes before anyone was able to get into the compartment, and the conditions in which that seaman was operating can barely be imagined.
	The injured submariner who is reported to have acted so heroically has not been named in the report. I wonder why that is. Is he one of the seven submariners who have been honoured with their commander-in-chief's commendation so far? Is he to be separately honoured? If he cannot be named for security reasons, does the Minister agree that that should not prevent his bravery being appropriately rewarded?
	Turning to the self-contained oxygen generators, I understand that these have been fitted in Trafalgar class submarines since 2001. Will the Minister tell us whether they have also been fitted to the Vanguard class submarines that carry the nuclear deterrent; if so, what is the status of such SCOGs on these particularly important vessels in the Royal Navy?
	We understand that, on this occasion, the accident occurred some distance away from the nuclear reactor in the submarine, but are SCOGs fitted to other parts of the submarine that are closer to the nuclear reactor? How near was the explosion to the cruise missiles—conventionally armed cruise missiles, which are the standard main armament of Trafalgar class submarines such as HMS Tireless—and how near was it to other explosive hardware carried by the submarine? Are there any other combustible products deployed on Her Majesty's submarines similar to SCOGs to which similarly lax procedures as described by the Minister have applied?
	The report identifies
	"shortcomings in the acquisition, manufacture, transport, storage, stowage and logistics management of SCOGs".
	In detail, the recommendations state that
	"The existing population... should be withdrawn from service"—
	the Minister has given us an update on that—but they also draw attention to the fact that
	"MoD-approved quality control checks and acceptance processes"
	should be
	"introduced to ensure that the manufacturer supplies sodium chlorate candles that are free from contamination and physical damage."
	Will the Minister explain why those checks were not carried out previously? The report also emphasises:
	"Logistics management for the SCOG replacement must ensure that guidance is clear about when the equipment is to be designated unserviceable".
	It seems inexplicable and unacceptable that no passed sell-by date was clearly applied to these combustible products—probably with fatal consequences for the two sailors.
	The report states:
	"Sufficient approved stowages should be identified",
	which suggests that there were not enough stowages for those dangerous products in the submarines, so I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on that point. If, as I have already alluded to, the bulkhead doors jammed shut, that is really a design fault that I would not have thought could happen in a modern nuclear-powered submarine.
	Significant sections of the report have been redacted, perhaps out of consideration for the families. Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements made for the return of the deceased to the United Kingdom were handled correctly?
	Finally, I would like to say that the tributes to the two young men have shown what outstanding personalities they were. Paul McCann, from Halesowen, was a keen sportsman with an inspirational personality, who was about to leave the service to marry his American fiancée last August. Tony Huntrod from Sunderland was a live wire with great charm and a fine sense of humour. They both join the roll of more than 5,000 submariners commemorated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers). We should all be very proud of them and very grateful to them and their families.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall try to answer as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as I can. The report took 15 months to complete. We have been everywhere in the effort to understand the detail of what happened. When I first approached the matter without knowing the detail, I wondered why it was taking so long and I was worried about the impact on the families. We went all the way, however, and even involved NASA—these vessels and the expertise associated with them are associated with the space programme—in order to understand all the ramifications. In the circumstances, I am sure that everyone would agree that thoroughness was more important than timeliness, although it is indeed unfortunate that these things take as long as they do.
	We struggled to make contact with the families, and it took longer than it should have done. Record keeping was part of the difficulty. None the less, that does not excuse the media behaving as they did. I wish that they always honoured—they often do—our kin-informing processes. We should all encourage them to do so, not only because of the distress caused to the individuals concerned, but because of the worry caused to the whole of the rest of the fleet in this case, or to our people on operations in other cases.
	On whether the vessel was in any danger, I am assured that it was not, but that does not detract from the fact that the conflagration could have been far worse had it not been for the actions of one particular individual. As I said, he was injured at the time, yet he struggled on and did a magnificent job. He has not been named because the wishes of that individual must be paramount over the views of anybody else. It is up to the individual himself how he wants to handle this.
	The problem was not, contrary to what has been reported, the jamming of the bulkhead door; it was another door into the compartment that jammed and took 40-odd minutes to get open. That door has been replaced by a mesh door, which will now be rolled out throughout the fleet. The board of inquiry exposed other issues about the adequacy of the equipment on board to break into the compartment in an emergency. That is being looked at and the recommendations are being implemented.
	On whether there are other combustibles, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer. I will look into it and come back to him as soon as I am able.
	On whether the SCOGs were beyond their sell-by date, they have a 15-year life expectancy and the Navy imposes a 10-year life expectancy in order to put some redundancy into the position. These SCOGs were introduced only in 2003, so the sell-by date of the equipment is not an issue here, although I have said yes about other serious issues.
	Stowage on board submarines was one of the issues flagged up. The generators for emergency use are stowed in different circumstances in different conditions and are not moved on and off submarines, so they are in good condition. As I have already said, they were all inspected. The generators used to add to the oxygen requirements, however, are routinely removed from submarines and have not been stowed on submarines where they would be safe from contamination from oil.
	There were issues about the handling of the bodies which have caused great distress to the families concerned. I do not wish to go into further detail on that, although there are lessons to be learned. I have discussed the matter privately, as has the Chief of the Naval Staff, with the families.

Bill Etherington: It goes without saying that no one gets any joy out of speaking in such a harrowing debate as this one. I join my right hon. Friend the Minister in expressing condolences to both the families of the deceased. I have dealt with one of the families—that of the late Mr. Huntrod—and I would like to place on record my great appreciation of the courtesy and caring attitude of the Minister in his dealings with my office. I thank him most sincerely.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend, who has done his job as a constituency Member of Parliament. It is only right that he should be served properly by a Minister in these circumstances.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Minister for making the statement today, giving an unreserved apology and accepting the Ministry's responsibility for what has gone wrong. When there is a responsibility of that sort, it is right to accept it, and I commend him for doing that today. I also pay tribute to Paul McCann and Anthony Huntrod, and echo the condolences that have been offered to their families.
	I know from having been on board a Royal Navy submarine that the culture of safety is paramount in everyone's mind. I welcome the assurances that we have been given that neither the vessel nor the nuclear power plant was at any point endangered, even if that was, in some sense, down to the heroic actions of one individual.
	I have not had access to the report, only the statement, for which I thank the Minister. He talked at considerable length about the oxygen generators and has described the measures that will be taken to try to ensure that the problem does not arise again. I would like to ask him about a slightly separate matter. Ever since the incident, accounts have emerged that it happened close to some of the sleeping quarters on board the submarine, that members of the crew emerged from their sleep, in understandably minimal clothing, into a smoky and hot atmosphere, and that adequate supplies of breathing equipment and points to plug it into and fire-retardant clothing were not available.
	Those shortcomings, as well as the points that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made about the lack of next-of-kin information being readily available, cause me some surprise, as they both seem fairly basic. I would welcome from the Minister an acknowledgement that such problems have been identified and a description of what steps will be taken to remedy what sound like fairly straightforward but rather important shortcomings, both on the Tireless and any other vessel.

Bob Ainsworth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: it was certainly my intention that he, like the official Opposition spokesman and the Chairman of the Defence Committee, receive the board of inquiry document along with a copy of my statement. If that has not happened, I can only apologise to him. He will be able to get a copy of the document from the Library, although I appreciate that it is now too late.
	The hon. Gentleman raised issues relating to sleeping quarters that are covered in the board of inquiry report. There are sleeping facilities in every part of our submarines—submarines are not endowed with a great deal of space, as anyone can see when they go on board. Yes, there were issues. There is an emergency oxygen capability, which it seems some members of the crew did not use: the issue there is their confidence in those emergency provisions. There are also plug-in oxygen providers: we need to increase the number of access points, as the board of inquiry has proposed, in order to prevent delays in accessing that second safety measure in good order and good time. The hon. Gentleman can see those matters set out in the board of inquiry document. I can only apologise again for his not receiving it.
	On next-of-kin informing, we took longer to get to people than we should have. We went to addresses that proved to be incorrect, which caused distress. That is a problem, and we must try to do better.

Linda Gilroy: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for his full statement to the House. As others have said, uppermost in our minds must be the families. I was therefore pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), who has dealt with my right hon. Friend's office in connection with one of the families, say how sympathetic he has been.
	We have also heard about how the submariners have been appropriately honoured. We in Devonport have a proud record of serving the Navy's submarines and service ships. However, I am deeply disturbed by the content of some of my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly in respect of the logistical management of such important items. I appreciate that he can say only a limited amount while the Health and Safety Executive and the Defence Export Services Organisation are looking into the situation. However, will he offer an assurance that the HSE will take a wide view of how such matters are handled? Many people who have worked in Devonport will be shocked by what has come out today. The whole community will want to know that the same thing cannot happen in any other aspect of logistic management, as well as the specifics of what he has reported today.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will find when she reads the board of inquiry report that it exposes the fact that in recent years some complacency in dealing with SCOGs appears to have crept in. SCOGs are not an integral part of the submarine, but they are a considerable item and there should have been a full appreciation of the dangers inherent in the equipment. We must understand that and in our internal investigation ensure that we leave no stone unturned in understanding what went wrong. The HSE has jurisdiction in the workplace in the United Kingdom. It will do what it chooses to do, having received all the advice and information. We will of course fully co-operate with the HSE in any investigation that it might choose to hold. However, that is a matter for the HSE. I have no control over it, and rightly so.

James Arbuthnot: Tributes have rightly been paid to the men who died and to the men who did so much to fight the fire. Does the Minister agree that the work that they were doing was no less important or inherently dangerous than the work that our men and women are doing on our behalf in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the world, and that we should honour their memory and the sacrifice that they have made? The Minister said that there had been developments to upgrade the design of the canisters and to replace emergency stocks, and that the Ministry is developing an alternative solution to meet further operational requirements. What effect has that had on the deployability of our submarine fleet and how long will it be before the new arrangements are fully in place?

Bob Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman asks us to do what we ought to do, which is recognise, first, that all submariners are special people to put themselves in such circumstances. The operation that Tireless was involved in, under the ice near the North Pole, is about as close as anyone can get to the cutting edge of capability, which we need to maintain. We must also appreciate the skill and bravery of all involved, not just those who were injured.
	On capability, we have removed standard SCOGs from almost the entire fleet. Instructions have been given to use none at all, other than for an emergency. I am told that under-the-ice operations are still possible—SCOGs are a secondary oxygen-generation system. I am not sure whether our capability is effective at the margins—I would have thought that it is—but we are working to put in place a new system. The new SCOG, with improved resilience to damage, is already arriving, but it will be used to replace the emergency SCOGs. The new system that we are considering will be used as the back-up oxygen-generation system.

Michael Penning: As a humble former guardsman, I pay tribute to my former sister service. Those of us who have the honour of being friends of submariners or former submariners are not at all surprised that that very special breed of men were so brave in doing their duty. One particular brave man does not wish to be named, and that is typical of submariners.
	One part of the Minister's statement worries me. Although he says rightly that nobody who serves in our armed forces can be guaranteed that they will not be injured or lose their life—they know that when they join; we all knew that—losing one's life to possible neglect or the fiddling of figures, which clearly took place in relation to the SCOGs, is a different matter. The Minister has said that he does not know whether those SCOGs were on the boat when it was on operations, but fiddling the figures and the documentation—for a reason that he has not told us, but that we can all assume is financial—seems astonishing. That is especially unfair to the families and loved ones of those who died, as the very honest report and very honest statement by the Minister have exposed.
	The Minister says that the Crown Prosecution Services does not think that a prosecution could take place. Can he elaborate on why that is? Is it because there is insufficient evidence, or is there another reason—public interest, perhaps? Could not the MOD take a civil case against the contractors if they have been negligent in their duties?

Bob Ainsworth: I understand the desire to do so, but we cannot jump to conclusions on blame. The question why those SCOGs were returned for use must be part of the investigation. We cannot scapegoat an individual without fully understanding the facts and waiting for the outcome of that investigation. We do not yet know what the circumstances were, and we need the investigation to find that out and expose any issues.

Michael Penning: You have had 14 months.

Bob Ainsworth: We have not had 14 months. We have had an ongoing police investigation and board of inquiry, and one cannot pre-empt or interfere with a police investigation; one must wait for it to finish. The police investigation has examined whether there was criminal negligence on anyone's part. The Crown Prosecution Service has told us that there is not evidence to support a prosecution. The further inquiry might expose blame, but let us please wait for that inquiry before jumping to any conclusions.

Philip Hollobone: Both the Minister and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister have rightly paid tribute not only to the crewmen who lost their lives but to the injured crewmen who bravely contained what could have been a far more serious incident. Patrolling under the ice is perhaps the most challenging environment for any submarine. In that regard, is it not heartening to note the comments of the commanding officer at the time with regard to his entire ship's company, who
	"acted in a totally professional manner throughout, dealing with the incident calmly and to the highest standards you would expect of the service"?

Bob Ainsworth: The uplifting parts to read of this deeply disappointing document are those that describe the incredible job that the ship's company did in tackling the incident. I am not the slightest bit surprised by that, having been the Minister for the Armed Forces for slightly less than a year, because I see that extraordinary state of mind displayed throughout the armed forces, and it was certainly displayed on that occasion.

Radioactive Waste

Hilary Benn: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the White Paper, "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: a Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal", which I am publishing today.
	The White Paper follows the work of the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM—which recommended in July 2006 that geological disposal, coupled with safe and secure interim storage, was the best approach to the long-term management of higher-activity radioactive waste. It also recommended a voluntarism and partnership approach as the best means of working with communities to help to identify a site for such a facility.
	The Government accepted those recommendations and consulted on a framework for implementing geological disposal in June 2007. A summary of responses indicating support for the proposed approach, including on how the voluntary partnership approach would work alongside site screening and assessment criteria, was published in January this year. Today's White Paper confirms our approach.
	We are therefore inviting communities to open up discussions with Government—without commitment—on the possibility of hosting such a geological disposal facility at some point in the future. To support that invitation, we have today opened a dedicated website, which can be accessed via the DEFRA website. I am also writing personally to every local authority in England to tell them about the invitation.
	The House might wonder why communities should be interested in hosting a facility. A facility will not proceed unless it is safe, secure and environmentally acceptable. Its construction and operation will be a multi-billion pound, high-tech project, which would contribute greatly to the local economy, providing skilled employment for hundreds of people over many decades and bringing benefits for industry, infrastructure and local services. Many of those benefits would remain after the facility had been sealed.
	In addition, any community that ultimately hosts a facility will fulfil an essential service to the nation and would expect the Government to ensure that the project contributes to its well-being. To that end, other benefits might be identified and developed through discussions between the community and the Government. Along with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, we want to talk to any community that might have an interest in that. Any such discussions would be exploratory and would carry no commitment to hosting a facility. We want to build trust.
	Indeed, let me be clear that communities which open discussions with Government will not automatically end up hosting a facility. There will be clear decision points at which progress can be reviewed, with safety, environmental impact, cost, affordability and value for money taken into account before decisions are taken to move on. The final stage would involve the local decision-making authorities deciding to proceed so that the Government would make an informed decision on a preferred site.
	The other issue is the waste itself. Discussions will need to take account of the amount and type of waste destined for disposal. We are today also publishing the latest UK radioactive waste inventory, which gives the current estimates of waste and other materials that could become waste in future. Estimates of the amount of waste will change over time as operational arrangements change and we find better ways of minimising waste. New nuclear power stations might also be built. We will therefore adopt a flexible approach to the design of the facility and a transparent process for updating the inventory for disposal.
	Geological disposal is the internationally preferred approach for managing such waste and is being adopted in many countries, including Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the United States and Sweden. It is likely to take several decades until a disposal facility is ready, but moving forward now towards a permanent solution is the right approach. It allows us to take decisions about disposing of waste that we have created or will create, and not place that responsibility on future generations. Today we are taking another significant step forward in dealing with that legacy, and I look forward to working with all those who can help us in the task.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance sight of it.
	The challenge of dealing with the legacy of toxic nuclear waste has dogged successive Governments for more than half a century. We strongly support the Government's recognition of the urgent need to find a sustainable long-term management option to tackle the problem. I say "management option" rather than "solution", because the only solution to the potential dangers of nuclear waste lies in hundreds of thousands of years of gradual degradation.
	I pay tribute to the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management and particularly its chairman, Professor Gordon MacKerron, for the thoughtful way in which it has approached this complex and sensitive issue. It is important to note that the committee's work related solely to legacy waste—the stuff that we already have, not the stuff that we might create if new nuclear power stations are built. I am concerned that the Government have muddled up those two distinct issues.
	That matters because it is accepted that the taxpayer faces a huge and growing financial liability for dealing with the existing waste—£73 billion at the last count, I think, although the Secretary of State may wish to update the House on that figure—but it is not accepted that new nuclear plant should receive subsidies, hidden or otherwise, from the taxpayer. The Conservatives have made it clear that any new build will have to cover its own costs, including the costs of managing waste. The Government have now sent a confused message. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to clarify that, as they have said before, it is not the Government's intention to subsidise new nuclear capacity or the consequential waste management need arising from it?
	On the specific questions, how many local authorities have already approached the Secretary of State with a view to discussing the matter? Did the Government consider identifying areas with suitable geological sites and approaching the relevant authorities, rather than writing to every council in England? It is essential not to compromise the geological security of the exercise for the sake of a local deal.
	What is the position in relation to Scotland? How many repositories does the Secretary of State believe we are going to need? What happens if no communities come forward to take on the responsibility? Is there a plan B? What will be the role of the unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission? Which arm of the Government do the envisage taking the final decision on where to locate a geological storage facility?
	It may seem ironic that this announcement, involving as it does the payment of inducements to people to persuade them to do what some might describe as the Government's dirty work, comes the day after the controversial vote on the terrorism legislation. However, in this context, that approach may well be justified. We need collectively to deal with the problem of existing nuclear waste responsibly, safely and as soon as possible.

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit and content of his response, with the exception of his last point. I know that he takes these matters seriously. I echo his thanks to Gordon MacKerron and to CoRWM for the work that they have done. I also pay tribute to Professor Pickard, who now chairs CoRWM in its new guise.
	The Government have not sent a confused message on new nuclear build. Indeed, we consulted on waste from new nuclear build as part of the nuclear consultation. We have said clearly that companies involved in building new nuclear will have to build up a fund to cover the costs of decommissioning and waste management, and we are going to set a fixed price, which will include a significant risk premium, to cover the costs of accepting new waste and contributing to the cost of building a geological facility. The hon. Gentleman will know that the nuclear liabilities financing assurance board will oversee the process.
	The truth is that in the past we tried an approach of scouring the country to find places. The last time it was tried, the final site identified in the mid-1990s was turned down by the inspector, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then Environment Secretary, confirmed that decision. We have to find a new method that is based on winning consent. That is why I thought it sensible to write to all local authorities. It is for them to decide to come forward. I assure the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that there will be no compromise of geological security. Indeed, once expressions of interest have come in, one of the very early stages is to screen those areas to see whether they would be suitable. As for the final decision in the process, we are minded to put that into the new planning arrangements, although the House is still in the process of considering them.
	The Scottish Government have decided not to participate; they will continue with near-site, near-surface storage. That is entirely a matter for them. The Welsh Assembly Government support the process, but have reserved their position on whether they wish to host a facility. Any expression of interest in Wales would have to go to the Welsh Assembly Government for consideration.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about communities that decide to come forward, I think, and I hope that the House will agree, that it is not unreasonable for those who say, "We are prepared, potentially, to host this facility on behalf of the nation," to receive support and consideration for doing that. That is the right approach. When hon. Members have had a chance to read the White Paper, they will see the very careful step-by-step approach that we are taking to win trust, build confidence and be open with information, so that communities have up until the very last minute to say, "Thanks, but no thanks." I think that is the right way to do it.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making that final point. The whole question of nuclear waste has been bedevilled by a lack of trust in those who have the stocks of waste. It is not actually the Government's dirty business, but the whole nation's dirty business. If we are to move beyond the current situation and have a long-term and secure solution, the concepts of voluntarism, trust and proper partnership are fundamental and vital to ensuring that the nation can entrust both the Government and other partners to do this necessary job for us all. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the spirit in which he has introduced the White Paper.

Hilary Benn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that a question was included there. I call Steve Webb.

Steve Webb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	I want to raise four issues with the right hon. Gentleman, the first of which is safety. Ten years ago, the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development said:
	"How to dispose of radioactive waste safely in perpetuity is one of the most intractable problems currently facing industrial countries. There are major scientific and technical difficulties with permanent"
	storage underground. Ten years on, can he tell us whether those technical difficulties have been definitively resolved? If they have not—my question on plan B is slightly different from the one posed by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)—and there are technical and scientific difficulties that cannot be resolved, what is plan B?
	My second question relates to interim arrangements. According to the White Paper, the storage will not be available for perhaps 20 years or more, but new nuclear will be up and running before that. Is it the intention to store the waste from new nuclear on site at the new nuclear plants? Will the Secretary of State confirm that that waste will be more radioactive than the waste coming from existing plants? Should people be worried by the thought of high-level, highly radioactive waste being stored on site at lots of locations around Britain? In a terrorist age, should we be concerned about that?
	The third question relates to the spiralling cost of clean-up of legacy waste. As has been said, the figures keep escalating. First, it was £56 billion and then it was £73 billion; another £10 billion here or there and soon we will be talking serious money. When will we get to the end? When will we know definitively how much the clean-up of the legacy waste will cost? We cannot keep having a few more billion added all the time. Does it worry the Secretary of State that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is responsible for this matter, keeps losing its senior staff? What is going on at the NDA?
	My final question is about the contribution of new nuclear to the costs of the repository. The White Paper says that the repository would have to be bigger if new nuclear goes ahead, especially if big new nuclear goes ahead. Will the Secretary of State confirm unreservedly that the whole incremental costs of a larger than intended store will be fully met by the new nuclear providers?

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those important and constructive questions. On safety, it is fair to acknowledge that the whole country has had the benefit of electricity produced by nuclear power for a long time. Nothing in this business is absolutely definitive, but our understanding has moved on.
	The approach of deep geological disposal is supported by the Royal Society, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Geological Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry. CoRWM looked long and hard at the matter, as he will also be aware, over two and a half years and it came back with the view that that is the approach to take. As I have already said to the House, it is the approach that, I think, 25 other countries are taking, including those that I listed. The right thing to do is to pursue it, because it is the way in which we are going to seek to deal with the waste. The straight answer to his question about what we will do if that approach does not work is that we will have to think about it then. However, the whole world is taking the approach of deep geological disposal to safe storage, which is why we intend to pursue it in the way that I have set out.
	Waste from new nuclear build will initially be stored on site—it depends on the nature of the waste and the design of the reactors. On the cost of the clear-up, the honest answer is that until one knows the size of the facility and the nature of the surrounding geology, we cannot definitively say that it will cost a considerable amount of money.
	I thought that the hon. Gentleman was slightly unfair to the NDA. I pay tribute to Ian Roxburgh, the outgoing chief executive, for his work since 2004, and I welcome the appointment of Richard Waite, who is taking over as interim chief executive. The NDA will play an important part in taking the work forward in the months and years ahead.

Andrew Miller: I remind the House that, 32 years ago, Lord Flowers published the report that resulted in the original work undertaken by Nirex. Owing to an act of cowardice by the Conservative Administration, that programme was frozen and the development of an underground research laboratory was stopped. At that time, we were the world leader, but we have now slipped behind. It is vital that we push forward with a long-term solution based on the best available science, which indicates that we should create a deep repository.
	I commend to my right hon. Friend the work done in Finland, where a decision was reached among competing towns. Will he ensure that all authorities where the geology is suitable are not only properly informed at local authority level, but subject to proper community engagement, because there is a huge benefit in the creation of scientific jobs?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend. We should draw on experience from all parts of the world—indeed, continuing research and development will be part of what the NDA does.
	The way in which the process is taken forward at local level will be extremely important, which is why the White Paper proposes that community siting partnerships should be established to bring together all local interests—local authority representatives, the local Members of Parliament, representatives of public services, residents' groups, NGOs and wider local interests and the NDA. We will support that process, because it is important that there is a local body to take the process forward step by step through receiving information and consulting the community to ensure that local agreement is expressed through the decision-making body, the local authority.
	I apologise for not answering the fourth question asked by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). I had already answered it in my exchange with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).

Michael Jack: In welcoming the Secretary of State's statement, it is important that potential volunteers understand what is meant by a "safe" deep geological repository. Given the problems that the last so-called "safe" repository had in gaining the inspectors' approval, will he tell the House what the definition of "safe" will be? In a letter to me, the Minister for the Environment has stated that
	"there will be an accompanying process of progressive assessment of potential sites",
	which is different from the "screening process" that the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement. When will information on the progressive assessment of potential sites emerge to guide communities on whether they should volunteer?

Hilary Benn: A clear system has been implemented to regulate the process. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it involves the nuclear installations inspectorate, the office for civil nuclear security, the Environment Agency and, when it comes to the transport of waste, the Department for Transport. All that will be overseen by CoRWM as an independent body offering scrutiny and advice, and nothing will happen unless the regulators are satisfied that a site is safe.
	When a local community expresses interest, the first stage will be to decide whether the subsurface is suitable. Following an initial assessment, if the site is not deemed suitable, the expression of interest will clearly be unable to continue. If the site is deemed suitable, the community can decide to participate in the next stage of the process, which involves more detailed examination of the geology, consultation and surface investigations. There will be a final stage before serious money is spent and serious underground operations begin, which will allow the community to say, "Thanks very much, but we don't want to participate," or, "Yes, we want to move on to the next stage." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the steps set out in the White Paper offer the reassurance that he is looking for.

Douglas Hogg: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I was here in 1982 and 1983, when Nirex introduced proposals for the disposal of low-level nuclear waste in shallow sites, one of which was in my constituency. On the back of that experience, I want to say three things. First, I am sure that deep-site disposal is the best way forward, subject to geology. Secondly, it is important that there are actual, tangible benefits to the local communities where the sites are located. Finally, sites should be identified in places that are already familiar with the generation of nuclear power. For example, I am not trying to identify Sellafield as a site, but the communities around Sellafield are familiar with the generation of nuclear power, which is an important consideration.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a lot of experience, and I am grateful for his support for the principle and practice of deep geological disposal. I completely agree with him about tangible benefits, which are only fair and reasonable to consider. We should not be surprised if those communities that already have the familiarity that he has described choose to come forward, but it is important that that choice is made by those communities rather than by our saying that we think that those communities should host the site.
	We are taking a different approach to a long-standing problem. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the problem has dogged Governments of all colours for a long time. It seems to the Government, and I hope to the House, that the right way to make progress after such a long time is by being open and direct, by giving information and by taking such matters stage by stage.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State is aware that I look after Hinkley Point nuclear power station, which is in my constituency. He is also aware that EDF Energy has bought 86 acres next to the power station and that there is a low-level waste storage plan, which has not been enacted yet, for the Hinkley Point site. He knows that the provision of deep storage will take some time, and I suspect that in his heart he would like the site to be at one of the existing nuclear facilities, as has been suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Does he see low-level waste storage facilities being bumped up to take high-level waste? Will he insist that companies such as EDF Energy build a local storage facility on site for high-level, medium-level and low-level waste? Will he set out how he envisages places such as Bridgwater in west Somerset will negotiate and who will do the negotiation on behalf of the Government?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, arrangements are already in place to deal with low-level waste. Those arrangements are working well, and the new facility that I have discussed today is not designed to take low-level waste, apart from a small amount that cannot be disposed of, principally due to the concentration of specific radionuclides. All the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised in respect of new build would have to be considered, if a proposal were to come forward. However, the proposal is principally about storing intermediate and high-level waste in a way that allows us safely to dispose of it in the future. It is also important that we reassure people in the interim that we can, as we have been doing for 50 years, find ways of safely storing waste.

Mark Pritchard: On the storage of nuclear waste, will the Secretary of State confirm whether that will require planning permission? If so, will the matter be decided by the local authority involved, or will it be given to the new infrastructure commission that the Government are seeking to introduce through the Planning Bill?

Hilary Benn: Any proposal to establish a facility would indeed require planning permission. The straight answer to the question is that the Government have not yet taken a final decision on how that would be done, but we are currently inclined to apply the new planning system to that decision.

Martin Horwood: The Secretary of State has been accused of mixed messages on this nuclear repository, but that is a bit unfair. He has been quite clear that he does not know how much it will cost, when it will be built or where. Two questions remain unanswered, however. To pick up on the point made earlier, while we wait for the new repository, are current nuclear power station sites that do not store high-level waste going to be asked to do so? Secondly, when the repository is built, how much foreign nuclear waste are we expecting to accept? Are the Government going to make Britain the nuclear dustbin for the rest of the world?

Hilary Benn: We do not intend to do that. Until the facility is built, high-level nuclear waste will be stored as it currently is. It is not our intention to take waste from elsewhere. This proposal is about dealing with our own legacy waste and any new waste that may result from a new nuclear build programme.

Philip Hollobone: At what depths would the high-level radioactive waste be buried? Would the Secretary of State be a little more helpful in outlining the volume of such waste that might be expected in the next 50 years?

Hilary Benn: The advice that I have received is that it could be placed between 200m and 1,000m deep. It will depend very much on the nature of the geology in the chosen site, and vaults and tunnels will be involved. The studies that have been done so far refer to the figure of 1 sq km for low-level and intermediate-level waste, and 3 sq km for high-level waste. The straight answer is that until we know the precise location, it is hard to give a definitive answer to that question. It will clearly need to be adequate to do the job.

Cabinet Office Assessment (Documents)

Edward Miliband: With permission, I would like to make a statement about events relating to the loss and recovery of two Joint Intelligence Committee documents.
	The Joint Intelligence Committee, which is situated in the Cabinet Office under the chairmanship of Alex Allan, provides intelligence assessments to Departments across Government. An employee working in the JIC assessment staff left two documents on an early-morning commuter train on Tuesday of this week. Although the documents do not contain the names of individual sources or specific operational details, they are sensitive high-level intelligence assessments. The individual concerned informed his superiors about the loss of the documents on Wednesday morning and they called in the Metropolitan police who began an urgent investigation.
	On Wednesday afternoon, the Cabinet Office was contacted by the BBC, which told the Department that the two documents were in its possession. The nature of the documents was made clear to the BBC and it was requested that it did not broadcast the contents of the documents, and that they be returned. The original documents were handed back to the Metropolitan police on Wednesday evening. There is no evidence at this stage to suggest that our vital national security interests have been damaged or that any individuals or operations have been put at risk. However, the police investigation is continuing.
	This was a clear breach of well-established security rules that forbid the removal of documents of this kind outside secure Government premises without clear authorisation and compliance with special security procedures. These rules are a clear part of the operating procedures for handling matters of this sensitivity. All individuals on joining the assessment staff are given a formal briefing on the rules by a specially designated security officer. That formal briefing is supplemented by clear, written instructions provided to the individual, who has to sign a statement to indicate that they have read, understood and will comply at all times with the rules.
	In this case, no authorisation was sought for the removal of the documents. The official concerned has been suspended from his duties as part of a standard civil service disciplinary procedure. The chairman of the JIC, Alex Allan, has confirmed that there are clear rules and that they were not followed in this case. But in order to provide the reassurance that all necessary procedures and safeguards are in place, the Cabinet Secretary has asked Sir David Omand, former permanent secretary for security and intelligence, and former permanent secretary at the Home Office, to carry out a full investigation of the circumstances of the case.
	Given the nature of the issues, I have asked Sir David to keep the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has a particular role in security and intelligence issues, fully informed. All JIC staff have been reminded by the chairman of the JIC of the fundamental importance of following all security procedures in full, and similar steps are being taken across government for those handling sensitive, intelligence-related material.
	It is a matter of utmost concern to the Government that this breach of security has happened. We will take all steps to ensure that all individuals who work within the Joint Intelligence Committee staff observe the procedures that are necessary for security. We will continue to do everything necessary to safeguard sensitive intelligence material so that we safeguard the British national interest. I commend this statement to the House.

Francis Maude: The Minister was absolutely right to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to make a statement, and I am grateful for sight of that statement.
	The Prime Minister said yesterday that we should take no risks with national security. There can be few greater risks than the casual abandonment of top secret intelligence material on a train, posing obvious risks both to national security and potentially to the safety of our armed forces personnel. There can scarcely have been a graver breach of intelligence and security procedures than this case. That al-Qaeda do not today know precisely what Britain knows about its activities and, more importantly, what Britain does not know, is entirely due to the responsible way in which the BBC has behaved, and reflects no credit whatsoever on the Government.
	This lamentable lapse of basic security awareness and procedures raises a number of specific questions for the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and I would be grateful if he would respond to them. How quickly did the BBC alert the Cabinet Office to the loss? We assume that it was almost immediately, but I would be grateful for confirmation of that. When was he personally aware of the problem? When did he inform the Prime Minister of the problem? What steps were taken immediately when the loss of the file was known on Tuesday?
	Were these two documents the original, numbered copies of the document—obviously, it would have been a breach of procedures for them to be allowed out of the Department in such circumstances—or were they illegal photocopies made in breach of the established existing procedures? What reason could there possibly be for this official to remove such files, apparently to read on the train? Why, now that such powerful encryption is available, are documents of such an extremely high level of security printed on paper at all? It may be too early for the Minister to say this, but he may be able to give some indication: will anybody be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act? Was he aware of there being a problem with information security in the relevant part of his Department, in the JIC, before the incident?
	There is clearly a major systemic problem with data security at the heart of the Government, and the saga goes on. In November last year, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs lost 15,000 records of Standard Life customers, followed by the loss of 25 million data records. In December, 18,000 personal records from the Department for Work and Pensions were found at a contractor's home. In December, the Secretary of State for Transport admitted that 3 million driver records were lost, apparently in Iowa. Also in December, NHS trusts lost 168,000 confidential records. The Ministry of Defence lost three laptops, stolen from the boot of a Navy officer's car, containing sensitive personal details of no fewer than 600,000 people. In January, hundreds of DWP records had apparently been dumped on a roundabout in Devon.
	It is not as if there had not been forewarning of the risks. Two years ago, the Walport report called for the Government to improve data security, warning that leaks of personal data would damage the Government's reputation. More than a year ago, in February 2007, General Sir Edmund Burton, the Cabinet Office's own adviser on information assurance, said:
	"What keeps me awake at night is that, with some notable exceptions, across government there's too little awareness of the scale and breadth of the risk facing us at the moment".
	Just last summer, at about the time when the Chancellor assumed his current responsibilities, Lord Coleman raised concerns in his report on data security, saying
	"adequate mechanisms are not yet in place".
	Obvious and dangerous issues arise from this kind of failure to comply with basic procedures, and the fact is that there may be—I should be grateful for the Minister's comments about this—a real problem with civil service morale, leading to laxity in the way in which procedures are not complied with.
	The Cabinet Office has responsibility for information security across the whole Government, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office is its ministerial head. I am sorry to have to say that there is no evidence that he takes this crucial part of his responsibilities nearly seriously enough. When we have asked questions in the past, he has allowed his junior Ministers to reply on this crucial issue. It is clear that he did not even read the Coleman report when it was published last summer. Does he understand that he must himself take very direct personal responsibility for this latest shocking failure at the heart of his own Department? Ministers cheerfully claim credit for anything good that happens, but all the failures are someone else's fault. Does the Minister understand that this buck really does stop with him?

Edward Miliband: My reason for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity was precisely to inform it of what I know about this serious situation, and, indeed, to take responsibility on behalf of the Government for sorting it out.
	Let me deal with the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). Some, obviously, will be the subject of the continuing investigation by the police, and also the investigation by Sir David Omand.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked when I was informed, and when the Prime Minister was informed. We were both informed yesterday afternoon. Then, fairly quickly, I spoke to Alex Allan, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the copies of the documents that were returned were the original copies. They were, but obviously the police will investigate the question of the originals and how they found their way from the train where they were lost on Tuesday to the BBC.
	Why did the individual concerned remove the documents? That is and should be a matter for the current investigations, but, as I have said, I think that it is an important point. There was a clear breach not simply of the rules, but of rules to which people sign up when they join the assessment staff.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked why copies of such documents were provided. A very small number of copies are provided, some of them for people who attend JIC meetings. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, information security of all kinds is not without its risks, although I take his point about the need to minimise the number of documents that are produced.
	Obviously I shall not go into the details of any prosecutions or any other action that is to be taken. That is a matter for the police.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I was aware of any problems relating to the work of the JIC. I think that the JIC does an extremely good job for our country, and I was not aware of any problems.
	There were clear rules in this case. I have set out those rules, and the way in which people sign up to them when they go to work for the assessment staff. This is a case in which those rules were not followed, and it is a matter of deep regret that they were not followed. As I have said, the rules are in place; but to provide the necessary reassurance, we have asked Sir David Omand to consider whether any more can be done to provide the necessary safeguards. We will of course await the outcome of his investigation.
	I think that the right hon. Gentleman's point about civil service morale was slightly beneath him. Civil servants do an extraordinary job, particularly in the intelligence services. I do not believe that that is the reason why the documents were left on a train.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help us to ensure that we can have the information security that we need.

Don Touhig: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity. When issues of this kind arise, Ministers ought to make themselves available to answer questions in the House. However, I am somewhat concerned about one part of my right hon. Friend's statement. He said there was "a clear breach of well-established security rules that forbid the removal of documents of this kind outside secure Government premises". Members of the House of Commons who serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee have to go to the Cabinet Office to read the documents there. They may not be removed. Why on earth does someone who works in the Cabinet Office need to remove documents at all?

Edward Miliband: My right hon. Friend has raised an important point. I can tell him that there are circumstances in which people must have meetings outside secure premises and documents need to be transferred from one place to another, but the most stringent rules exist, although I will not go into the details. As for the briefcases and other secure items in which documents are carried, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that it is exceptional for documents to be taken out of the building. Authorisation needs to be sought, and if it is given, it is given only in the most secure circumstances. As I said earlier, it was not sought in this case.

Susan Kramer: All of us are probably appalled that we have to be here today because of a breach of security on this scale. A tribute has been paid to the BBC for its prompt response, but perhaps we also owe a tribute to the finder of the documents, who could presumably have taken them to some other less responsible parties, perhaps in return for remuneration. Thank goodness the person who laid hands on them had some good sense.
	We are all aware that this is not the only loss of information—the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), counted some 37 million pieces of personal data that went missing last year—but I have to say that this is on a different scale and of a different order, and perhaps we should not conflate the two issues.
	I noted the slight irony that the Department that the Government have asked to review data-handling procedures is the Cabinet Office. Looking at one's own home first may, in fact, be an appropriate step.
	I have only a few questions to add to those that have already been asked. It is, perhaps, possible to be almost too glibly certain that the documents never passed into the wrong hands, and I hope those conducting the investigation will consider that carefully rather than dismissing what happened as simply chance and accident. Although I think we all overwhelmingly believe that that is what it must have been, any other possibility should not be ruled out at this early stage, and I ask for this possibility not to be mentally dismissed or treated in a trivial way.
	Both the BBC and  The Guardian have reported that, under strict procedures—the Minister mentioned some of them—officials can take secret documents out. Perhaps we need to know a little more about what those procedures are in order to have an idea of whether or not they made sense in this case. A mere locked box, for example, does not seem terribly appropriate.
	The main question that I want to ask, however, is this: to what extent are the procedures fine while the culture is not? A much more casual culture can easily develop, in which someone dumps the contents of an in-tray into a briefcase to read or to work on at home, having lost the sense that certain key documents carry real importance and real concern. At that point, even if all the procedures are in place, if the culture has led to the loss of that sense—and I doubt that this was a one-off; the loss may have been, but I bet the taking home was not—a much more fundamental problem exists, which must be examined.
	Let me pick up something that was said by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I am anxious that this episode should not become a slur on the civil service as a whole. Presumably, it involved someone who made an error or did something wrong at a—

Andrew MacKinlay: Senior.

Susan Kramer: At a very senior level. We do not need to treat this incident as suggesting that the civil service at large is not conscious of these issues. However, I would like the question of the culture to be thoroughly addressed.

Edward Miliband: Let me start by associating myself with the hon. Lady's comments about the civil service. As she says, it is easy in such circumstances to attach general opprobrium to the civil service. That would be wrong, because the vast majority of civil servants not only do a very good job, but do it with a proper regard for information security. It is important to put that on the record.
	The hon. Lady made a point about the rules for taking documents out of buildings. Let us be absolutely clear: in this case, there was no authorisation for the documents to be taken out of the building. The rules were absolutely clear: authorisation should be sought. Such documents should be taken out of buildings in the most exceptional circumstances only, and in the securest of briefcases and with other such security attached. As I have said, there was no authorisation in this case, and there was no such security.
	The hon. Lady also raised the issue of culture. Let me return to the first point I made: it would be a bit too easy—and also wrong—to say that because one out of 40 or 50 members of the assessment staff took a document out of the building without authorisation, that is a part of a general culture either there or elsewhere. Having said that, however, we want Sir David Omand to look at the necessary procedures and safeguards precisely in order to ensure both that that is not the case and that any necessary safeguards are in place.

John Spellar: I will not follow the Opposition spokesman's stance of sentence first and trial afterwards, but that does not mean that there are not some serious questions to pose. Although I accept that the Minister will not be able to answer all of them today, I think they should form a part of the Omand investigation. There are top secret documents not only in the JIC and the Cabinet Office, but in other offices across Whitehall. Will the message that classified documents cannot be taken out of a secure environment except under certain conditions be strongly reinforced? Secondly, what explanation is there about the gap between the alleged leaving of the documents on Tuesday morning and the notification to the Cabinet Office on Wednesday morning—will that question be asked? Thirdly, the inquiry must look at the question, which will be in people's minds, as to whether those documents were taken from the office for the purpose of being leaked.

Edward Miliband: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his contribution. On his first point about classified documents, he is right that we should reinforce that message, and because of the gravity of this incident we are taking steps to do so not only to the assessment staff, but to all staff who handle intelligence-related material. That message is, as we speak, being conveyed by the Cabinet Secretary and other permanent secretaries across Government. My right hon. Friend asked about the timeline. It is for the police investigation to trace exactly what happened, and I think he will understand why I do not want to comment on that. Finally, let me say to my right hon. Friend that there is a need to improve the information security culture. We want Sir David Omand to conduct a review in order to look at questions to do with the security of intelligence-related material, and that is what he will do.

Julian Lewis: I am rather astonished that no reference has been made to the searching of individuals as they enter and leave premises where top secret material is held. Why should somebody who works in such premises not be searched on leaving premises to check that they are not removing classified material? Is that routinely done, and if so, do people of a sufficient level of seniority think themselves above such procedures?

Edward Miliband: All issues will, of course, need to be looked at by Sir David Omand. Searching each individual from the assessment staff who leaves the building each evening would clearly be quite an onerous task.

Julian Lewis: No, it would not.

Edward Miliband: But I say to the hon. Gentleman that Sir David Omand will look at all suggestions.

Keith Vaz: Many of us have been campaigning for many years for more transparency in Government, but this is not what we had in mind. I welcome the Minister's decision to come to the House so speedily and to set up the inquiry so quickly, given the terms of reference that he has mentioned. Only the most partisan person would feel that he was in any way responsible for what happened: he was not on the train; he was not reading the document; and he did not take the documents out of the relevant Department. Will he undertake to ensure that he has discussions with other colleagues who are most closely involved with these matters? I saw that the Home Secretary was sitting beside him a few moments ago. Has he had discussions with her, and will he ensure that when the inquiry is completed, it will be published—at least those facts that can be put into the public domain—so that we know what the process was and whether it was followed? Also, will he undertake to come back to the House with that report?

Edward Miliband: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend who takes a great interest in these matters as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He asked about my discussions with other colleagues; I have discussed this matter with the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend will know that in the past such inquiries have had an element that must remain classified, which is why I mentioned the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I will, of course, keep the House informed of Sir David Omand's conclusions.

Douglas Hogg: I recognise that such mishaps can occasionally happen. I was in the Foreign Office for five years, and I was aware of—indeed, involved in—occasional lapses of this kind. Incidentally, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) that I would not have favoured being searched when I left the Foreign Office. What is important is to learn from these experiences and to try to make improvements, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has said there has now been a pattern of failure over many months—there have been many incidents. That suggests to me that the mistakes are not being addressed, despite the many inquiries that have doubtless been set up. Therefore, may I say that it is the business of the right hon. Gentleman and of senior officials to bear down on what I suspect is a very casual attitude that is now being taken with regard to documents of this kind?

Edward Miliband: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. He can take up with the hon. Member for New Forest, East whether he would have wanted to have been searched on leaving the Foreign Office. No doubt, Sir David Omand will consider the matter. As for the question about culture, let me make the point that this matter relates to one individual within the assessment staff. Because of the gravity of this issue, we have taken action to remind all the assessment staff and those across Government dealing with such sensitive material about security, and we have asked Sir David Omand to conduct his investigation in order to look at whether more can be done to put the necessary safeguards in place.
	Let me say a few words on information security. Regrettably, I would not be being honest if I were to give a guarantee that no such incidents will ever occur. What I can say, however, is that we should take the necessary action and take all the steps we can to prevent them from happening. That is why I have come before the House today.

Andrew MacKinlay: Is it not a fact that this official was a seconded MI5 officer, and that, therefore, all this business about him being part of the assessment staff is part of an attempt to play this incident down? Although the Minister is innocent of responsibility for this cock-up, he is responsible for addressing the investigation and the remedy. I have no confidence whatever in Sir David Omand; he is a safe pair of hands, and will be involved in a cover-up. Does the Minister recall a conversation I had with him three weeks ago, when I told him there was no parliamentary oversight of the security and intelligence services? He promised to come back to me, but he did not. I reiterate my point: unless or until there is a Committee of Parliament looking into these matters, we can have no confidence about the veracity of the security and intelligence services and the so-called investigations. Let us have a parliamentary Committee now.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has very strong views about the status of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I recall our discussion, and it will no doubt be a continuing part of his discussions with the Government and those people who are responsible for these decisions.

Andrew MacKinlay: Is he an MI5 officer?

Edward Miliband: I am not going to get drawn into a discussion of the status of the individual concerned. Apart from anything else, I do not think that would be fair to that individual. As for my hon. Friend's comments about Sir David Omand, I met Sir David this morning and he is determined to conduct a rigorous investigation to ensure that, as far as possible, we have the necessary safeguards in place.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance notice of it, and for his candour in saying that no authorisation was sought for the removal of the documents and in describing the breaches in guidelines, procedures and rules. In any number of the answers that he has given, he has said that the latter needed to be beefed up. My concern is not about guidelines, but about the fact that there appears to be no physical or technical restriction preventing people from getting documents in the instance of a rule breach. Rules will always be breached, either innocently or out of malice. So, will the Minister assure me that when the Government examine this properly, they will examine not only rules, guidelines and instructions, but physical and technical restrictions that will simply prevent a document from being accessed or handed over when the rules have been breached?

Edward Miliband: Again, I want to be slightly cautious in what I say about the circumstances of this case, for reasons that the House will understand. When individuals are closely involved in the production of a document, they will clearly have access to it—it is hard to prevent that from happening. The hon. Gentleman made a wider point about Sir David's review and its examination of what can be done. I am not coming to this place promising magic solutions, and, in a way, we must let Sir David do his work. He is experienced and expert in these matters, so we must allow him to examine what can be done, to make his judgment about the safeguards and the rules that are in place, and to report accordingly.

Andrew Miller: The security of information, whether electronic or on paper, clearly must be given higher priority by all organisations, both in the public and private sector—recent lapses have also occurred in banks and so on. Sir Edmund Burton was charged with looking at the problem that occurred in the Ministry of Defence when a laptop was left on the back seat of a car. Has my right hon. Friend seen a report from Sir Edmund Burton? Can lessons be learned from that? Can we have a discussion in this House about information assurance in its broader sense—not necessarily in terms of things that are covered by the Official Secrets Act—to convince us that a proper process, led by his Department, is under way that will comfort the public, who are concerned about how the Government handle data?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend obviously has expertise in these matters. First, Sir Edmund Burton is reporting to the Defence Secretary, and that report is a matter for him. More important than that is the broader issue, which relates to the ongoing report by Sir Gus O'Donnell into the wider lessons that we should learn about information assurance. A number of hon. Members on both sides have talked about culture change, and that particular question needs to be addressed in relation to data issues, which have obviously been the subject of much discussion over the past few months. There are also obviously issues to be addressed on the handling of paper documents, as we have discovered in the course of the past 48 hours. My hon. Friend is right to say that these issues need to be taken very seriously by this House and by others.

Philip Hollobone: It is obviously a good thing that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has chosen to make this statement, but may I explore when and for what reasons he decided to do so? Was it his decision to make a statement or was it the Prime Minister's? For what reason has the statement been made? Is it because the document went missing? Is it because it was returned? Or is it because it was publicised by the BBC?

Edward Miliband: It was my decision—a decision with which the Prime Minister agreed. I think that this is a serious matter, and it is right that I inform the House about what I know of the circumstances and about the action that I plan to take.

Martin Horwood: I declare a constituency interest and, indeed, a past family connection. Does the Minister agree that members of the British Secret Intelligence Service have had an exemplary record of care and confidentiality over a century of service to this country? Does he also agree that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman's loose language of "low morale" and "laxity" was profoundly inappropriate? Does he also agree that it is vital that responsibility is taken, that current procedures are enforced, and, if necessary, reviewed further, and that our Secret Intelligence Service is not denigrated by party political point scoring?

Edward Miliband: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the civil service. It is one of the jobs of the Opposition to pounce on situations where there is human fallibility and where human mistakes are made and make them a party political issue. That is part of our political culture, and I would not expect anything else of the Opposition Front-Bench team. I believe that when most Members of this House, including the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), think about this issue, they will want to associate themselves with the remarks that the hon. Gentleman makes about members of the intelligence services, the vast majority of whom do an incredibly important job for our country.

Mark Pritchard: I was very disappointed by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood); he did himself a disservice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has gone on record praising this nation's security services, so we should let the record stand.
	Is the Minister completely confident that the BBC or the passenger did not take further copies of these documents? Given the Government's shambolic record on data security and managing risk, is it not time that they perhaps tried to manage reward and give incentives for people who return Government property? I am thinking of things such as the 1,000 laptops that have gone missing in recent years.

Edward Miliband: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, all those matters are for the police investigation and I shall not comment on them, for reasons that he will understand. Obviously, we will think further about the question of rewards.

Points of Order

Francis Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has just attributed to me words that I did not speak and sentiments that I certainly do not feel. He attributed to me disparaging remarks about our intelligence services and about our civil servants more generally that I certainly did not say or mean. I would be grateful if you would give him the opportunity to retract his comments. As one of my hon. Friends mentioned, I am on record as having said that I think we get fantastic service from our civil servants. However, there is a genuine issue to be addressed about the state of morale in large parts of our civil service, for which I do not blame civil servants; I think that it is attributable to the Government.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it further to that point of order?

Martin Horwood: I am in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attributed to the right hon. Gentleman only the words "low morale" and "laxity", which were exactly the words that he used.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We obviously cannot continue —[Interruption.] Order. We cannot continue further with that statement, which we are in danger of doing. I think that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman have put their points firmly on the record. We must leave it at that.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already mentioned this point—indeed, I mentioned it in advance to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. You will know the importance of business questions: it gives Back Benchers an opportunity to raise matters of concern to them or their constituents. The time available is inevitably limited, so it is important that the Front-Bench spokesmen should not occupy too much time. This morning, the Front-Bench spokesmen took up between 22 and 24 minutes of business questions, which is intolerable to many Back Benchers. As a result of that, many Back Benchers were not able to intervene, although happily, I was able to do so. May I ask you to raise with Mr. Speaker how we can deal with this issue? I have privately raised the matter on previous occasions within my party, but I suggest that the prolixity of the contributions by Front-Bench spokesmen, especially in business questions, is intolerable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much understand the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I think that it is incumbent on all Front Benchers to be very conscious of the proportion of the allowed time that they take. I think that Ministers and Opposition shadow Ministers should think about that, and that all of us should lend our attention to it. May I say that I think that it is also incumbent on Back Benchers to ask one question when they are supposed to ask one question, if that is possible, and to make it brief? If we could all achieve both those objectives, that would be highly satisfactory from everybody's point of view.

Topical Debates
	 — 
	Dangerous Dogs

Jonathan R Shaw: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of dangerous dogs.
	This is a very opportune moment to have a debate on dangerous dogs. I know many people feel strongly about this issue and my colleague in the other place who leads for the Government on dangerous dogs just last week gave a speech to a very well attended RSPCA conference on the issue. Therefore it may be useful if I set out at the start of the debate the Government's position on dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs legislation.
	I know that some hon. Members feel that we need a new dangerous dogs law, because the current law is ineffective and flawed. We disagree. I am aware from the letters we receive that parents have concerns about their children being attacked by dogs, and those whose work involves them going on to private premises, such as postal workers, also have concerns about the current powers available.
	Several hon. Members are calling for a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I assure the House that the Government are well ahead of the game here. In the aftermath of the shocking death of Ellie Lawrenson in January 2007, my Department conducted a detailed review of the dangerous dogs legislation. We wrote to police forces in England and Wales at the beginning of last year to ascertain whether there were problems with the law and to judge how it was enforced. We then discussed the results of this consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Members may be interested to know that a summary of the responses received from the police has been placed in the Library.
	The outcome of the review has guided the Government's policy in this area. The three main findings were that there are sufficiently robust yet proportionate powers within current legislation to tackle irresponsible dog ownership, including incidences in which a dog is being used as a weapon; that the police have not been making full use of the powers within the legislation and that enforcement around the country was patchy; and finally that Parliament was absolutely right to prohibit the ownership of pit bull terriers.
	Our view is that the legislation now in place is robust and that new legislation is not the answer. Certainly over the past few months, we have heard a number of suggestions as to how we can change the law. We have considered these changes. They seem to range from either highly disproportionate responses to the problem or ones that would make the situation worse. One much publicised suggestion has been for a dog ownership test. That would involve setting up an executive agency—a doggie DVLA, perhaps—to run a licensing scheme for dog owners. All owners would need to pass a test before getting a licence. Other possibilities include licensing all male un-neutered dogs under a revised Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the introduction of a watertight dog registration system that would have all the necessary veterinarian/dog behaviourist checks to ensure that those who registered did not register dangerous dogs.

Philip Hollobone: There is much public concern about dangerous dogs and a parliamentary answer earlier this year revealed that 4,000 people a year are treated in hospital for dog bites. That is double the level of four years ago. I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but what is difficult about ensuring that people are held responsible and accountable for the behaviour of their animal?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman brings a measured tone to the debate. I hope that I will be able to answer his point in my speech. People are rightly concerned by that increase, and that is why the Government have provided this opportunity for hon. Members to discuss this issue.

Greg Hands: The Minister might remember that I had an Adjournment debate on 8 May 2007 on the subject of dog fighting. I agree that we need better enforcement of the existing legislation and we do not need to create a huge number of new offences, but I suggested in that debate that we create a specific offence of breeding dogs for fighting. That could be an effective tool in closing down some of the dog breeding factories that are run specifically for the purpose of fighting.

Jonathan R Shaw: I regret that I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate. I was in the Whips Office at the time, and Adjournment debates are not necessarily the focus of the Whips' attention, as they tend to focus on votes in the House. He makes a fair point, and I hope to show that we have been through a process, in which we have talked to all the relevant agencies involved, including councils in London, the RSPCA and the police, about how we can enforce the legislation better.

Justine Greening: My local council, Wandsworth, was one of the local authorities that participated. My understanding was that recommendations were brought forward, but the working group was told that not enough parliamentary time was available to make any changes. Dangerous dogs are a massive problem in my area.

Jonathan R Shaw: No, that is not that case. If I may proceed with my speech, I shall give examples of what is happening in Wandsworth and another London borough.
	I was talking about the schemes that have been proposed and I am not saying that they have no merit, but if they are to be truly effective, there will need to be rigorous enforcement; otherwise they will be ignored by the irresponsible with only responsible owners obeying them. A key test of any new measure is whether it would disproportionately target the vast majority of responsible dog owners. I dread to think how much the schemes would cost, and that cost would have to be borne by responsible dog owners through the licence fee when they have done nothing wrong. It could end up being seen as a massive dog tax, borne by the vast majority of dog owners who are law-abiding citizens and out to promote the welfare of dogs.

Martin Horwood: The Cheltenham animal shelter has advised me that the microchips that could be used in a universal dog licensing system cost only about £2.60 per chip.

Jonathan R Shaw: We would also have to take into account the bureaucracy, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has factored that into his equation—

Greg Hands: That does not sound very liberal.

Jonathan R Shaw: It would be liberal with other people's money.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Jonathan R Shaw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I expect that the cost will go up even more now.

Martin Horwood: Cheltenham animal shelter provides and administers a chipping system for a fee of £8 per dog, which includes a charitable donation to the shelter.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am sure that the organisation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is run and organised by excellent people, but obviously we do not legislate just for Cheltenham. The system would have to be rolled out, and I doubt that such organisations would be universal across the system. Any system introduced to Parliament would have to be accountable and we would have to ensure that the scheme was in operation. Otherwise, it would fall into disrepute.
	As I have said, many just do not have the money to pay for such schemes. We do not want to penalise people on low incomes who enjoy the companionship of their dogs. We also wonder how many dogs would end up in re-homing centres.
	Another more controversial suggestion is that we should open up the index of exempted dogs to owner-led registration. For those Members who not aware of this fact, the only pit bull terriers legally owned in this country must be registered on the index of exempted dogs. Only a court can add a pit bull to the index and only when it is satisfied that the dog does not pose a threat to public safety and that the owner is an appropriate person to own such a dog. Let me make it clear that we believe that that is absolutely right. Pit bulls are not suitable animals to be kept as pets unless a court has determined that they are not a threat. The index is purely an administrative agency. It issues exemption certificates for those dogs that have been seen by a court. It is not within the scope of the index to make a judgment on either a dog or its owner.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that this debate would be better entitled "Dangerous Dog Owners"? It is not the dogs that are at fault but the owners. If owners train or breed them to be aggressive, they will be. A lot of kennels, breeders and pet shop owners are very responsible and go to great lengths to ensure that people who take on puppies have the right temperament to train them and the right environment to bring them up in. Can we not place more responsibility on kennels and pet shops so that those that are not responsible are made to ensure that the people who buy their puppies are fit to do so?

Jonathan R Shaw: The first part of the hon. Lady's intervention, on dangerous people and what they do when they abuse animals, is absolutely right. I am sure that the whole House will agree with that sensible point. On her second point, the standard of practice in ensuring that a dog goes to a good home will vary across the piece. There are agencies that ensure that kennels, breeders and pet shops put good practice into place. We have the RSPCA and local authorities to do that and, importantly, the animal welfare registration system that we have introduced ensures that we can take steps to prevent cruelty. That was groundbreaking legislation, which had the consent of the House, and it was an important development.
	To open up the index to owner-led registration would remove those important checks and could allow unsuitable owners legally to hold dangerous dogs. I suspect that it would also encourage dog fighting, as it might enable dog fighters to sell more easily any surplus dogs that they produced. That said, we recognise that there is an increasing problem of irresponsible dog ownership. We are sensitive to the fact that there have, in the past few years, been a number of high-profile and tragic incidents involving children. Some have been tragic domestic incidents in the home where a dog has suddenly turned on a child, but in some cases there has been a clear link with dog aggression and the wider problem of antisocial behaviour. We are also aware that hospitals report an increase in patients needing treatment for dog bites, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone).
	I assure the House that the Government take the problem seriously. We believe that it would be far better tackled through more effective enforcement of the existing law, ideally through local solutions. We are already seeing a number of successful local initiatives developing around the country, such as the work done by Merseyside police in immediate response to the horrific chapter of events that led to the death of Ellie Lawrenson. Their swift action reassured the local community that the police were responsive to the feeling of worry and outrage in Merseyside.
	Other initiatives are geared not only at raising awareness of the law but engendering a spirit of responsibility in local communities, a good example of which is the Brent Action for Responsible K9s initiative—or BARK, as it is more commonly known. BARK is an excellent example of a number of agencies working together, sharing information, offering advice to the public and dealing with irresponsible owners to tackle the irresponsible use and mistreatment of dogs. BARK comprises the Metropolitan police, the RSPCA, the Mayhew animal home, Brent council, Brent antisocial behaviour team and Brent Housing Partnership.
	BARK was set up in January last year as a result of a significant increase—70 per cent.—in all types of incidents involving dogs. BARK offers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Minister has had his allocated time.

Andrew Rosindell: I am pleased that this topic been brought before the House today, as will the millions of people throughout the United Kingdom who, like me, are responsible dog owners. It is a debate that we need to have. Many people across the country are concerned that the laws we have in Britain are ineffective in protecting the public from those dogs that have the potential to cause harm to humans and to other animals.

David Amess: I know that my hon. Friend might be a little anxious as this is his debut at the Dispatch Box, but I thought it was usual for hon. Members to declare their interest. Will my hon. Friend now declare his interest?

Andrew Rosindell: I have no direct interest to declare other than that I own a Staffordshire bull terrier called Buster, but he is not dangerous—except to the opposition at election time when he campaigns with me in Romford. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	Many people are concerned that the laws in this country are ineffective and do not have the potential to deal with this serious problem. As a nation of animal lovers, we also have great compassion when it comes to ensuring the welfare of man's best friend by encouraging the responsible ownership of dogs. Indeed, as so many organisations that are engaged in this debate—such as the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and others—will tell us, promoting responsible dog ownership, education and training is by far the best means by which to ensure the protection of the public.

Martin Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Staffordshire bull terriers make good family pets and that there is no reason to discriminate against the breed? Does he disagree with the suggestion from the leader of my local council in Wandsworth that a £500 dog licence should be applied to specific breeds, namely Staffordshire bull terriers?

Andrew Rosindell: As the owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier—it might be that I am biased—I certainly do not think the breed is dangerous in any sense. Of course, any dog has the potential to be dangerous, but I am wholly opposed to any persecution of any breed. The deed is what counts and responsible dog ownership is what matters, not the breed of dog. I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	In recent years, we have witnessed a series of tragic incidents involving dogs, and quite rightly, with every high profile attack—particularly when it involves a child—there is a natural demand for Parliament to take a fresh and serious look at the issue of dangerous dogs, to review whether the law is working to best effect in the protection of the public and to examine how things can be improved.
	Her Majesty's Opposition understand and share the public's concerns. We also share people's fears about the deliberate use of dogs for illegal and sometimes violent purposes, and we are committed to ensuring that the protection of the public is paramount. However, we are also committed to high standards of animal welfare: dogs are man's greatest and most loyal companions, and they too must be protected from abuse and cruelty. Our laws must reflect that.

Angela Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the organisations that re-home dogs that have been abandoned or need to find a new family for various reasons? They go to enormous lengths to ensure that the new homes are suitable, and they make follow-up visits to ensure that a dog has settled in properly and that the new relationship is successful.

Andrew Rosindell: I certainly commend those organisations as they do a splendid job. There are many of them around the country, with volunteers making use of private donations to look after the welfare of dogs and re-home them in happy family environments. I have worked closely with organisations that re-home greyhounds, something that I know my hon. Friend is especially interested in.
	The Minister will be aware of the danger posed to the public by dogs whose mental and physical welfare is not catered for by their irresponsible owners. The alarming increase in the number of dogs being bred for antisocial and aggressive purposes such as fighting is deeply worrying. With greater sophistication and more investment being channelled into the breeding of aggressive dogs, we have more dangerous dogs in this country than ever before. They are bred primarily in deprived urban areas and are often insufficiently restrained by their uncaring owners. As a result, an alarmingly large proportion of the public—notably children—is at risk of attack, and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has failed to prevent the existence of dogs belonging to what are described as "dangerous breeds". It has certainly not led to a decrease in attacks: nearly 4,000 people received treatment for bites or dog-related wounds last year, twice as many as four years ago.
	The police have spent an enormous amount of time and valuable resources in attempting to enforce the law, but to what effect? The Dangerous Dogs Act has also had a detrimental impact on the welfare of those dogs that have been kept in kennels, in some cases for many years, or euthanased simply because of their breed or type. There have been countless cases since 1991 of dogs that have been held in police kennels for long periods. That costs large sums of money and causes huge stress to the animal and heartache to the owners—often when the dog has shown no signs of aggression whatsoever. How the police handle situations involving dogs must also be reviewed and tightened up, as all of us, including the police, have a duty of care under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
	The law should allow the police to focus their resources where they are needed most and where they will be put to best use in protecting the public. We need to question whether the current breed-specific legislation really is the best way of doing that. The police and local authorities might be more effective if they were able to target cruel and irresponsible owners, regardless of the breed of dog involved.
	As the shadow Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, I have been liaising closely with the Kennel Club's Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which represents animal welfare organisations, local authorities, police and veterinary professionals. There is a consensus that the 1991 Act needs to be reviewed, and I can tell the House today that that is precisely what the next Conservative Government will do.
	We will study all the evidence on how best we can protect the public from dog attacks and how police resources can be used in the most effective way, while at the same time ensuring that the welfare of the animal is fully taken into account. Policy must be developed that addresses the danger posed by certain dogs to the wider community but that at the same time reasserts the enforcement of the law in emphasising that a dog's mental and physical welfare is the owner's responsibility.
	Owners must retain the principal control of and responsibility for their dogs, but there should be no interference from new regulations: the experience of owning a dog must remain liberating and rewarding. There is a clear need to shift the focus of the available penalties towards dogs' specific actions and the failure by owners to act responsibly, and away from penalising the ownership of certain breeds as a whole. That approach is generally accepted by all dog organisations as a much more effective way forward.
	It is unfair to penalise a small minority of dogs solely because of their breeding history: all dogs can attack when trained to do so, just as all breeds can produce friendly, good natured dogs when the animals are trained responsibly. Consideration should also be given to opening the index of exempted dogs to allow owner-led applications, as that would give owners a chance to prove that their dogs do not pose a danger to the public. In cases where illegal dogs are successfully registered and proved to be safe, their welfare will have been maintained, with the result that they will not be seized and placed in police kennels unnecessarily. The police would then have more freedom to focus their resources on real cases involving irresponsible dog owners and dogs that pose a genuine a danger to the public.
	In summary, we must implement the "deed not the breed" principle, and the support and protection of responsible owners must also be addressed. We should retain the offences connected with serious aggression, and their potentially severe penalties, but safeguards must also be introduced for owners so that they can prove that their dog was provoked into being aggressive. Owners should also be able to prove that their dog attacked in self-defence or as a means of preventing a physical assault on its owner.
	The issue of dangerous dogs seems to have eluded many local authorities across the country, despite the growth in frequency and severity of reported incidents. I want the subject to be made a priority for local authorities and police forces, so that the harsh penalties available for dealing with crimes of this nature are communicated successfully to people. Resources need to be invested in opposing the so-called sport of dog fighting. Public awareness of the problem needs to be raised and a widespread clampdown encouraged. As with many other crimes, only by focusing on prevention and asking for public as well as police-driven help can we properly attack the root causes.
	The issue of dangerous dogs ties in very closely to another growing concern—that of stolen and stray dogs. Dogs are often stolen for the purpose of fighting, and stray dogs can indeed become dangerous when left to fend for themselves.

David Amess: I am listening to my hon. Friend's proposals very carefully, and I hope to be lucky enough to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later, as I want to say something about the 1991 Act. Where does the support for the Conservative party's proposals on these matters come from? Where has my hon. Friend sought advice, and how does he think the proposals would work in practice? I agree very much with what he is saying, but I am concerned about the practical implementation of the policies.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have liaised closely with the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and all the major dog welfare organisations in this country. I am sure that the Minister is also in contact with them. They share the concerns I have set out this afternoon, and much of what I am saying is based on the advice that they have given to me and to the Conservative party. We believe in dog welfare and in protecting the public, and any legislation that we bring forward must strike the right balance.
	Dog theft is a great concern, and one of the fastest growing crimes in the UK. In most cases, the dogs are sold on, sometimes to completely innocent and unsuspecting members of the public. In the vast majority of cases, by the time the dog is in the possession of a third party it is completely untraceable. However, that need not be so. Through the simple use of a nationally recognised microchip system, whereby information on a chip is scanned and stored on a national database, many such cases could be solved or even prevented in the first place. I commend the work of the Vets Get Scanning appeal, and especially that of Bruce Forsyth and his daughter Debbie Matthews.
	Crimes involving man's best friend are cruel and heartless, and in the extreme they threaten the freedom of individuals to enjoy the everyday leisure activity of dog walking in public areas without fear of theft, violence and intimidation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his allocated time.

Ian Cawsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his debut on the Front Bench. He is a good supporter of dogs, for which he was known even before he entered the House. I am pleased that he has been given a position to which he will bring much experience for the benefit of other Members and the House.
	I begin with a declaration of interest—before the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) tells me I have not made one. I am a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association, a trustee of the Jerry Green dog rescue trust and the proud owner of Ben, a very elderly but loveable Labrador, and China, a rescued ex-hare coursing lurcher—both of which have their own page on my website, which is often more popular than I am.
	I welcome the debate, which has been a long time coming. For seven years, I have had the great honour of chairing the all-party group on animal welfare. I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the House and with animal welfare groups on all aspects of the topic, which has come up time and again over the years.
	Early in his speech, my hon. Friend the Minister said that in his and the Government's view there was no need for new legislation. Perhaps we might return to that point later. I attach no blame to the Government who introduced the 1991 Act, because, as Members may recall, a number of horrendous incidents had occurred in quick succession and there was much pressure for the then Government to act. I am the first to accept that the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced with the best of intentions, but I am not certain about its outcome. With the clarity of hindsight, which of course we all wish we could have at the time, I am not convinced that the Act has had the effect that many of us in the dog and animal welfare world hoped it would.
	The Act seems to have many shortcomings that need to be redressed. It is retrospective in nature, and although there will obviously always be a clamour to take action when an incident has occurred, we would all prefer an intervention to stop a dog becoming dangerous. There is nothing in the law that helps in that regard. Section 3 can be applied only in certain circumstances—when a dog is in a public place or in a private place where it is not permitted. In other words, if a person owns some land and has a dog that they may be making dangerous, through breeding and training, for all sorts of bad purposes, such as dog fighting, they cannot be prosecuted under section 3, because the animal is on their land. That seems to be a big hole in the legislation.
	The law applies only when the dog acts dangerously towards people. However, if we want to reach a situation where we intervene before such incidents happen, we need to do much more. The hon. Member for Romford used the phrase, "deeds not breeds", and those of us involved in these things hear that over and over again. We need to give that idea further thought.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which includes the Battersea dogs home, the Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the Metropolitan police, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the RSPCA, Wandsworth borough council and Wood Green animal shelters. That is an impressive group of people, who know what they are talking about. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be talking to them, but I hope he listens to them, too. Although I realise that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, in what he said about the study group there was almost an implication that it was briefing only the Conservative party on these matters. Having chaired the all-party group for several years, I know that all members of the group are extremely forthcoming in advising all politicians on animal welfare matters. If any hon. Members want further information they will find that the group is a good one with which to hold discussions. I am grateful for all the effort that the group has put in and for the briefings it has given me and others.
	As has been said, we need to try to intervene to help owners. Most people do not want to have a dangerous dog. Sometimes, they do not have the necessary expertise or skills to handle the dog, and sometimes they do not understand what they are taking on. This might be too much of an animal pun, but it has always been a bit of a hobby horse of mine that we should involve younger people in animal welfare and responsibilities for animal care, which relate to wider issues than just dogs. Animal welfare should be part of citizenship education in schools. I realise that the school curriculum is burdened with all sorts of things, and I do not mean for a second that animal welfare should be a huge part of it, but as all schools are required to cover citizenship, something about the responsibilities involved in keeping animals would be welcome. People often take on an animal without being aware of the extent of the commitment.
	When organisations sell animals—or, in some cases, simply hand them over—it is important that they make adequate checks that the people taking the animal are responsible, have the right facilities to care for it and know what its needs are. Even in the dog world, there are huge variations in the needs of different breeds, and people need information about that. Most kennels act responsibly; they have to be licensed, so I hope that requirements on checking are part of the licensing and registration process.
	Members with good memories will recall that a few years ago, I promoted a private Member's Bill to try to ensure that rescue centres and sanctuaries were covered by the laws that apply to kennels. I am a trustee of a rescue centre and although there is no requirement for us to abide by those provisions, we do so because we are a good trust. I am pleased that the provisions of my Bill were picked up—albeit many years later—in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but one of the most frustrating things is waiting for secondary legislation to implement the measure. I understand why it was decided that not everything in the 2006 Act could be done straight away and that its provisions would be phased in, but ensuring that those who hand over dogs do the right thing is an important element if we want responsible dog ownership.
	Recently published statistics show worrying growth in the number of dog fights. There has also been an increase in the number of trophy dogs, owned by people who parade in a macho way around their estates or town centres with a big muscular dog straining at the bit. That is a worrying trend and it is important that we have strategies to deal with it. The Minister may comment later on whether we need legislation, but something needs to be done.
	Dogs are stolen, sometimes for various reasons to do with the breed, and sometimes for people who are involved in dog fighting. A dog was stolen a few months ago from Jerry Green's head sanctuary, which is based in my constituency. It is a sanctuary, so it wants people to have its dogs. There really is no need to break in at night and take them, so the people who do break in probably do so for two reasons: first, because they want a particular dog—we suspect that in that case, the dog was going to be used for fighting—and secondly, because those people know that they will not get through the sanctuary's vetting procedures. In other words, we would not have allowed them to have a dog, so they broke in and took some away. Again, the Government must take action on dog theft.
	I praise Dog Theft Action, an organisation that a number of hon. Members will know about. It does some excellent work trying to spread good practice, to trace dogs and to help people who have lost their dogs. I mention in particular Maggie Nawlockyi—I can already see the  Hansard scribe writing a little note to me about how to spell that. She is one of my constituents, and she has done an excellent job of raising the profile of dog theft. It is a big problem that sometimes involves dangerous dogs and dogs that will be used in fighting. We need to do more about it.
	On what can be done to improve the situation, the Government must decide whether legislation is required, but more action must be taken to help when dangerous dogs cause problems in communities. There is a lot of call for something similar to an improvement notice, which is already a part of the 2006 Act and could be used in such circumstances. I go back to my original point: most dog owners—most animal owners—do not intend to have a dangerous or difficult animal; the problem arises because they do not know enough about what they are doing, or they did not look into the situation enough before they took a dog on.
	Many Members have probably experienced going out with an RSPCA inspector and spending a day doing what they do. I remember going out in Hull with an inspector, and we called at a dog owner's house because there had been a report, not of a dangerous dog, but of a dog that had not been adequately cared for. I found the situation striking, because when the RSPCA inspector turned up, all uniformed and all the rest, they found an elderly couple who owned the dog. The couple were petrified by that uniformed person knocking at the door and coming in, and they were fearful that the RSPCA was just going to take the dog away. In fact, they just required some help and support. They wanted to look after the dog; they just did not know what to do. The RSPCA wrote out an improvement notice, gave them some guidance and advice and then monitored the situation until the inspectors were happy that the dog was being adequately cared for.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in some circumstances the RSPCA does not have enough powers when it finds an animal in a state of neglect and the owners unresponsive to its advice? The animal has to be in a very bad state or injured before the RSPCA has the power to remove it. Sometimes, even with repeated visits, the owners do not respond to the good advice that they receive.

Ian Cawsey: We could probably all provide examples from our constituencies of such situations. However, the 2006 Act, with its five basic freedoms for animals, is a real step forward. The law now allows for intervention before an act of cruelty takes place, so we do not have to wait for it to happen. That is a big step forward. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, however, and more must be done.
	Improvement notices in respect of potentially dangerous dogs might require owners to do all sorts of things, depending on what the inspector saw. Such measures could include muzzling, a requirement to keep the dog on a lead when it was out, or even re-homing, if that was necessary. Those things could be done at the intervention stage—before incidents have happened and before draconian measures have to be taken. Offences will have to be placed on the statute book, however, which is why I should be interested to hear more from my hon. Friend the Minister, if not today then privately at some point in the future. It strikes me that it must be made an offence to have a dog dangerously out of control in both a public and a private place. We have to cover both places; I can see no logic in the restrictions of the current law. There should also be an aggravating element if the owner or person in charge of the dog encourages it to be aggressive, or to intimidate people or animals.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend talks about a dangerous dog on private property. We keep such matters under review, but I referred to a case earlier on. Often, the family dog is involved in such attacks, and in such tragic family circumstances, we do not then want to prosecute those people. The situation is bad enough as it is—the child has been disfigured by the family dog. Getting the legislation right is a complex task, but we do not want to make things worse.

Ian Cawsey: I understand that. That is why I said that further consideration had to be given to the issue. However, I say to my hon. Friend—who genuinely is, as he knows, an honourable friend of mine—that an offence does not have to be prosecuted just because it is on the statute book. Common sense should always apply, and not only in cases involving dogs, before a prosecution is started. However, we could never prosecute in any circumstances if there were no offence on the statute book, so the issue is worthy of further investigation.
	I do not think that there is any disagreement about the fact that in some cases a dog is so dangerously out of control that, however it became so, the only safe option is to put it down; our trust has had to do that. However, that option should always be the absolutely last resort, and I am not at all convinced that under the 1991 Act it is. I would like a list of punishments or actions that can be taken when there are concerns about a dog. There should be control orders requiring the owner to keep the dog muzzled or on a lead, or to get it neutered or re-homed—whatever is deemed appropriate for that particular animal. There could be disqualification orders, deprivation orders and, as a last resort, destruction orders.

Andrew Rosindell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that one of the flaws of the 1991 Act is how it has been implemented? Dogs have often been seized quite unnecessarily and locked up for long periods in cruel conditions, which has caused great distress to the families and the animal. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a reform is needed so that action can be taken in stages? In that way, small deeds could be dealt with by small penalties rather than, as has frequently happened, by having dogs seized, put down or taken away from their owners unnecessarily, which leads to great distress.

Ian Cawsey: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am calling for a range of tariffs so that we can deal with the simple problems at the simple end of things. I suppose that punishments for owners at the horrendous end of the scale could go up to imprisonment and fines, but at the moment dogs are ending up in kennels for long periods, and there is no right of appeal for getting back a seized dog, even if the owner thinks that there has clearly been a mistake—after all, mistakes are made.
	The law is inadequate. I am the first to acknowledge that all sorts of improvements can be made without running to the statute book, but I wonder whether that applies to what we are discussing. No doubt the Minister will inform me about what he is willing to do. The problem of dangerous dogs will not go away; if anything, it has got worse since the 1991 Act—the incidents have got worse and the numbers of dog fights and trophy dogs have increased. It is incumbent on all of us in the House—particularly those here today, who all care about dogs—to ensure that there are fewer dangerous dogs and that the law protects the public from dangerous dogs but is not draconian toward dog owners, who in nearly every case simply want to do the best for their best friends.

Martin Horwood: I declare myself to be a dog lover and the president of the Cheltenham branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The situation that we face seems grim. The statistics obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) show a dramatic rise in hospitalisation resulting from dog bites. In 2002, there were fewer than 3,000 such incidents, but in 2006-07 there were 3,787. The rise in my strategic health authority area in the south-west is even greater: the number of such incidents there has gone up by 53 per cent. in those four years.
	The RSPCA statistics on calls relating to dog fighting are also dramatic. In 2004, the organisation had 24 such calls. By 2006, the number had risen to 137 and in 2007, the organisation received a staggering 358 calls specifically about dog fighting. Behind those statistics lie some terrifying individual examples, some from my constituency. When I visited Cheltenham animal shelter last year, I saw an American pit bull-type dog called Benny. One of the problems with the 1991 Act is that the breeds are often difficult to identify precisely. That dog had attacked a series of other dogs and had left a number of them—possibly as many as four—dead. It had then attacked and badly bitten an owner who had tried to defend his own pet. It proved rather difficult to identify the owner of the dog that attacked the others, but the animal was retained as evidence by the Cheltenham animal shelter, apparently while still alive, but it said that if the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute because the case was not strong enough, or if the prosecution failed, the dog would have to go back to the apparent owner, even though the experts at the animal shelter were quite convinced that it was a threat to other animals and to human beings.
	There was an even more widely publicised case in Cheltenham involving Alfie, an American bulldog cross; again, that is not one of the breeds specified in the Act. The dog was being set on passers-by by people who may or may not have been its owner. It finally hospitalised my constituent, Martin Merenko. The dog was shot, but it had already paid three visits to the Cheltenham animal shelter, which was unable to retain the dog because it did not have the power not to return the dog to the owner, as the dog had not, at the time in question, done the requisite amount of damage. However, the animal shelter staff could tell, as experts, that the dog's behaviour was such that it was a danger.
	As an hon. Member has said, the problem is not just the most extreme cases, but those lower-level incidents that are warning signs and precursors to other attacks. My constituent Derrick Pepperell had to defend his terrified four-year-old granddaughter, Emily, from three fighting dogs in Hatherley park in my constituency. Again, apparently no action could be taken in that case. That was obviously a warning sign that something more dangerous might happen in future. My constituent Sharon Martin wrote to me about her dog being repeatedly attacked. The animal responsible had not at that stage attacked a human being. She said:
	"My dog was not the only dog that day to be attacked by the same vicious dog. No-one is coming forward to claim this animal and I have now been told by the police (after many phone calls) that the animal will be destroyed...But there are still more of these animals out there. I see them every day. I alone have paid a £400 vet's bill, I dread to think of the other owners' bills. I want to know what you intend to do about these dangerous dogs."
	When I questioned the police about that case, they told me that their practical notes said that
	"In a statement of complaint,"
	which is apparently what the case was,
	"the victim must identify the dog. It is usually necessary for the victim to then identify the dog in the presence of the owner and the investigating officer."
	That is not in the realm of reality.
	We need drastic reform of the dangerous dogs legislation, and as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), the RSPCA and the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare have rightly said, a key factor must be shifting the emphasis from the breed—there is a rather obscure list of breeds that many people have never seen—to the deed. I would take the advice of the Cheltenham animal shelter and the RSPCA a step further and reintroduce dog licensing, based on a self-financing microchip scheme.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he intervened on me two or three times. The hon. Gentleman can get a leaflet that we have published, which provides all the names of the breeds. The issues that he raises on behalf of his constituents are of great concern, and if he provides me with the details, I will happily look into the cases, because I am concerned that the law is not being properly enforced.

Martin Horwood: I am very grateful for the Minister's comments, and I will pass on the details. The problem with the list is not that it is difficult to identify which dogs are on it, including the Japanese Tosa and the Dogo Argentino, but that in many cases people have never seen those dogs in their areas. Most of the damage is done by cross-breeds and other such animals that are quite difficult to identify, hence the need to emphasise dangerous behaviour, and to empower local agencies, such as local councils, the police and the Cheltenham animal shelter, to impound dogs that exhibit behaviour that they know will cause those animals to be a threat to individuals and other animals. Local bodies must be given that power.
	As I say, we should move to a self-financing microchip licensing scheme. The Minister expressed doubt about the cost of that. The Dogs Trust administers a scheme for, I think, £10 a dog. Even if a national scheme charged three times that, £30 is still an affordable cost for dog owners. In fact, if a dog owner cannot afford £30 for a licence, how could they possibly afford to keep and feed a dog of the kind that we are discussing? We face a terrifying rise in injuries and incidents, and that rise must be stopped. The hon. Member for Romford suggested that we wait for a Conservative Government to take action, but I suspect that that might be some time coming. If this Government were to take drastic action, we would certainly support them.

Martin Linton: It may seem a strange reflection that hon. Members would not have to go far from the House to find places where dog fighting is a problem. I could take them to an estate within a mile and a half of the House, where I get constant complaints about the use of dogs for dog fighting, crime and intimidation. Residents on such estates queue up to sign my petition against dangerous dog owners, urging greater use of antisocial behaviour orders and enforcement of tenancy conditions to control the problem.
	I have tabled an early-day motion, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, which deals with measures that the Government can still take. Although I praise many of the steps already taken, I still urge my hon. Friend to consider further measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) mentioned control orders for dogs to be destroyed, controlled, muzzled or re-homed, which are important, but I draw his attention to proposals for the compulsory microchipping of dogs, for a minimum age for dog ownership, and for powers to disqualify owners from having charge of a dog.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that the reintroduction of dog licences would be ineffective unless it was backed up with enormous resources. I would be as sceptical as he and other hon. Members are about any proposal for further breed-specific legislation. The 1991 Act has already thrown up enough problems without our legislating further against other breeds. That is why I do not agree with the leader of my local council in Wandsworth, as I mentioned, when he suggested a £500 licence fee for owners of particular breeds, such as Staffordshire bull terriers. I think he mentioned four breeds.
	It would be wrong to penalise the owners of those breeds in that way, and in any case it would be the responsible owners of Staffordshire bull terriers—I am sure that would include the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—who would pay the licence, and the irresponsible owners, of whom one has to admit there are quite a few, would try to get away without paying.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned microchipping. That is already automatic for organisations such as the Battersea dogs and cats home in my constituency, and it is routine practice for vets. I am sure it is strongly encouraged by the Government in their guidelines, which I understand are due out later this summer. The next logical step is to make microchipping compulsory. I realise that that could be described as a form of licensing, because the microchip would contain information about the dog's home and owner, but it is a practical measure that does not involve the amount of paperwork that was necessary with the old licensing system or the kind of paperwork that was mentioned.
	Microchipping would make everybody's job much easier—the police, the RSPCA, the dogs home, the dog wardens. All of them would benefit greatly from being able to identify a dog's owner and locate its home instantly. The charge often made for microchipping is £25, and it would be a hugely popular and practical move. I believe Wandsworth council is already considering making microchipping of dogs a condition of council tenancy agreements.

Angela Watkinson: I accept the advantages of microchipping and licensing that the hon. Gentleman has just explained, but the one downside is the many elderly people, perhaps on modest incomes, who rely on companion animals and get great pleasure from owning them. If the process was expensive, it could preclude those people from owning pets.

Martin Linton: If microchipping were made compulsory, it would have to be introduced gradually. It would apply to new pets to start with, and consideration would have to be given to the cost. Not every dog owner could be guaranteed to be able to afford it. The microchip itself costs only a couple of pounds, so the Battersea dogs and cats home and other refuges could help those who could not afford it themselves.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point that I made—that if a dog owner cannot afford £10, £20 or £30 for a dog licence, they are unlikely to be able to afford to keep and feed a dog properly?

Martin Linton: Indeed, it costs several pounds a week to keep a dog, but I do not see cost as something that precludes progress on microchipping.
	Having a minimum age for dog ownership in a sense presupposes a licensing system because it means that every dog has to have a named owner who is above that stated age. Dog control units say that the major problem nowadays is with dog owners aged about 13 to 17—teenagers who, because they cannot have a gun or a knife without running the risk of enormous sentences, have an aggressive dog as the next best weapon. In some respects, a dog may be an even better weapon to use to intimidate, threaten and frighten people. I realise that a minimum age of 18 would, however, prevent parents from giving their child a puppy of their own to look after, which can be a very educative experience for a child. Of course, children who own a dog never really take full responsibility for it, so I would have thought that the law should recognise that dog ownership carries with it certain responsibilities that can be borne only by an adult. Having powers to disqualify owners from having charge of a dog obviously requires a legal owner, but legal ownership could be determined simply by the microchip in the dog rather than by some expensive national register.
	I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which the Minister mentioned. It has produced some detailed proposals, which I hope he will consider carefully, because that serious and responsible group has sought the common ground between the interests of dog owners and the public and put forward proposals that respect the concerns of both. The group has rightly pointed out the flaws in breed-specific legislation, but has not called for the repeal of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which I think would be a mistake. Although it does not support a return to licensing, it supports the creation of a database containing the details of those owners found to be in breach of the Act.
	As I say, the Government deserve enormous credit for the many measures they have introduced that have had an impact on dangerous dogs. Antisocial behaviour orders, which have proved to be a very useful weapon to deal with dangerous dogs, are a case in point. Safer neighbourhoods teams—a constant presence on estates—can also play a useful role. Under the powers introduced in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 dog control orders can be issued to put dogs on leads, dogs are prohibited from certain areas such as playgrounds and owners who do not pick up dog mess may be penalised. It also restricts the number of dogs in any particular area.
	Concern about dangerous dogs is exceeded by only one other issue in my area—that of dogs' mess, which can in its own way be dangerous to children. Of course, the 2005 Act allows the issuing of an £80 fixed penalty notice—my local authority is currently considering it—for any breaches of its terms. A fixed penalty notice cannot be fixed on a windscreen and it must be served on the owner—I do not know exactly how the scheme works. The really important issue, identified by the Minister in his opening remarks, is enforcement. New legislation has a part to play, but most of the problem relates to enforcement.
	Wandsworth has a dog control unit of six—one of the largest in the country. I pay tribute to Mark Callis, the senior dog control officer who is also a member of the study group that I mentioned, for doing such a good job. It is one of the bigger units in the country, but six people in a borough of 300,000 is a drop in the ocean. We must either expand those units or find another means of enforcement.

Greg Hands: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's praise for Wandsworth council, but does he agree that six dog control officers are considerably more than most similarly sized boroughs have? The council does a pretty good job.

Martin Linton: Indeed. My point is that even though Wandsworth has one of the larger dog control units, it cannot check on all the dog problems in a borough of our size. The constant complaint that I hear is that people never see the dog control unit. That is not a criticism of the dog control unit at all, but it is, by its nature, very thinly spread.
	We need to think more carefully about the role of other enforcement agencies in dealing with the problem. Safer neighbourhood teams have powers to deal with cycling on pavements, litter and fly-tipping, so perhaps they should play a bigger role, through the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, in enforcing the legislation, as it is impractical to expect dog control units, unless they were much bigger, to do so.
	In conclusion, the trend in the past few years has been towards dogs being used for intimidation and crime by quite young, inexperienced dog owners who, because of their inexperience, sometimes let their dogs become quite aggressive and uncontrollable. It is sometimes said that dogs have become a fashion accessory. I fear that they will become a crime accessory and used more and more aggressively as weapons of intimidation, which will lead to public opprobrium on dogs and dog ownership in general and people calling for much more draconian legislation. Some further changes in the law, in the same direction in which the Government have already moved, would help to deal with the problem. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider those points.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his debut at the Dispatch Box. In every sense, he was a howling success.
	We are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers. It can be argued that, in comparison with some other countries, we treat our animals in a civilised way. Perhaps hon. Members will correct me, but we do not eat dogs in this country—I have never been in a restaurant that served dog. The dog, of all animals, is held dearly in the hearts of everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said, for many people, their dogs are their lives.
	Like my hon. Friend and others in the Chamber, I have a dog—a black Labrador called Michael. It was given to our family by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and came from the home of Rab Butler's son, so in every sense our black Labrador is a true pedigree. That said, Michael probably qualifies as the laziest dog in the world. However, he triumphed this year at the Westminster dog of the year show, winning two prizes—the reason he got two prizes was that I threatened the judges, but I shall not go into detail.
	While I am talking about medals, I hope that the Minister will privately send me a note saying when the Land Army girls will receive their medals. I thought that it would happen in June or July, but I have not yet received a note from his office.
	I very much agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He is not only a consistent champion of animals, but a distinguished member of MP4, whom I and others had the opportunity of enjoying a few weeks ago.
	I have listened carefully to the criticisms of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Mr. Deputy Speaker and I are probably the only hon. Members present who were in the House when it was introduced. I remember it clearly, and— [ Interruption. ] I do apologise; I did not see my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), a fellow member of the 1983 intake. He was certainly in the House in 1991, too. The noble Lord Baker of Dorking did the right thing at the time, because there was tremendous public pressure for legislation. Seventeen years on, I would be the first to admit that perhaps we need to look at the legislation again.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said clearly and as the Minister knows, the problem is not with dogs but with their owners. As Members of Parliament, we are only too well aware of the problems of life today; what we need are solutions. As I gently said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, the proposals are splendid, but I am slightly concerned about how we will deliver them in practice.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing me into this debate, because he reminds me that the then Minister dealing with the matter, Angela Rumbold, was put under a lot of pressure to include Rottweilers in the category of dangerous dogs. As the owner of a Rottweiler, I was able to demonstrate to her that that would be extremely unjust.

David Amess: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of his love for dogs and the situation of Rottweilers. It is a difficult conversation to pursue, because we all have favourite dogs. I can understand why there is perhaps a slight impression that a Rottweiler is quite a powerful dog—with which, I think, my hon. Friend would agree—and in the ownership of the wrong sort of person might display slightly aggressive tendencies. To label Rottweilers as dangerous, however, is absolutely wrong.
	The 1991 Act has undoubtedly been responsible for a number of dogs being kept in kennels for years—costing a huge amount of money—or euthanased simply because of their breed, which the House agrees is wrong. Section 3 gives individuals the right to legal recourse against owners whose dogs attack them, but it applies only when the dog is in a public place, or a private place where the dog is not permitted to be. Individuals have no legal protection at all in a permitted private place. That is an inadequate part of the 1991 Act.
	The Minister is not the sort to pay lip service to this topical debate; he will be a man of action and do something as a result of our hour-and-a-half discussion. The Dangerous Dogs Act study group has real expertise and I support its endeavours to replace the provision in the Act with the deed-not-breed principle. There is currently no provision for an owner to apply to a court for a seized dog to be returned. I agree with other Members about section 1, which predicts a dog's behaviour based on its physical confirmation. It placed on the index of exempted dogs those that had never been proven to be dangerous, which is wrong.
	High-profile attacks against children have taken place, but they make the news for a few days and then seem to be forgotten. The approach of Members who are interested in animal welfare should be more robust and consistent to ensure that such tragedies do not happen in future.

Paul Truswell: All Members appreciate that it is always difficult to legislate on the basis of high-profile and emotive cases, but the concern of our constituents—and certainly mine—is the huge increase, to which previous speakers have referred, in the number of incidents, not just the high-profile cases.

David Amess: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes an excellent point. I hope that something comes out of the debate, because, as he said, the danger posed by dogs whose physical and mental well-being is not cared for by their owners is seriously underestimated.
	As someone who takes dogs for a walk—it is the most gregarious activity that I know of—I am appalled by those owners who let their dogs off the lead knowing full well that it is likely to have a go at another dog. Time after time, the owners who are not responsible let the majority of responsible dog owners down.
	More dogs are being bred in deprived urban conditions, which is leading to an increased threat of attack. I am advised that the number of dog attacks requiring medical treatment has doubled to 4,000 over the past four years. That is a huge number. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford wants a deed-not-breed policy, which I certainly agree with. I also agree that legislation should address the danger posed by certain dogs, but with the emphasis on their physical and mental well-being as the key, the responsibility for which should be placed squarely on the dog owner.
	I end with a few positive thoughts. Like the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, I hope that we do not lose the legislation; there must be a window of opportunity somewhere to amend it. We should consider the aggravating element in attack cases by examining the breeding conditions and welfare provided by the owner. We should reduce unnecessary red tape in the 1991 Act, because it does contain a lot of it. We might have to convince the Minister of this, but we should open the index of exempted dogs to owner-led applications to prove that the dog is not dangerous. That would address the problem of dogs being bred for antisocial reasons and secure more prosecutions against irresponsible owners. We should also elevate the priority that local authorities and the police give to dealing with dangerous dogs and clamp down more vigorously on the terrible sport of dog fighting.
	Finally, I and other hon. Members had the joy of meeting Bruce Forsyth in the Pugin Room recently, together with his daughter Debbie Matthews, who works for an organisation called Vets Get Scanning. I hope that at some stage we can have a meeting in the House with Bruce Forsyth and his daughter and that they will convince us of the value of Vets Get Scanning.
	I join others in saying that the debate is welcome. I am putting a heavy responsibility on the Minister, who will be, as we all are, judged by his deeds, to ensure that something positive comes out of it.

Greg Hands: I want to talk about two aspects. The first is dog fighting. The second is some of the success that Hammersmith and Fulham council is having in combating dangerous dogs in general. I have already referred to an Adjournment debate that I had last May on dog fighting. At that time, Hammersmith and Fulham faced a crisis given the amount of dog fighting and ancillary activity that was going on in the borough.
	The phenomenon has been around in London for a long time. It probably peaked about a year ago in my borough and came on to my radar screen about three years ago. It first arose from a chance encounter with the chairwoman of the Clem Attlee, Maton and Rocque tenants association, which represents one of the largest estates in Fulham, who mentioned the problem to me. At first, I was surprised and genuinely taken aback that this mediaeval practice could be going on in what is not one of the poorest London boroughs.
	I was told about pre-arranged dog fights on the Clem Attlee sports pitch. It struck me as extremely strange and dangerous. Not only did it take out of action a precious community facility that is much needed on the estate, but it created a danger to both humans and dogs. As it turns out, the dog fights were relatively rare, but an awful lot of behaviour connected with dog fighting causes enormous difficulties in local communities. The problem was not only organised fights on the sports pitch, but intimidating activity before fights, which involved dogs being lined up inside and outside the pitch area to snarl at each other and to prospect for a fight in the future.
	At first, I thought that the problem might be a one-off that was restricted to the Clem Attlee estate, but following further research I found that it was happening in various places across Hammersmith, including the White City estate, the William Church estate and De Palma court. Partly due to the good work of Hammersmith and Fulham federation of tenants and residents association, I also found out about a couple of dog-breeding factories in my constituency, one of which was discovered in Adam walk and the other in Flora gardens.
	A lot of criminality and unpleasant behaviour surrounds dog fights—for example, gambling takes place. Sometimes the dogs are traded, and they can fetch between £1,000 and £2,000 on the secondary market. Many of the fights are recorded, which is the canine equivalent of happy-slapping, and the DVDs and videos are sold around the place.
	The training of dogs for fighting causes grave damage to community facilities. Such dogs are generally trained in parks and woodland, and one practice involves hanging a dog from a tree in a effort to strengthen its jaws for fighting. If one went to Wormwood Scrubs, or even to Ravenscourt park in Hammersmith, a year ago, one would have found a lot of damaged trees that had been used for training dogs. Dogs were even hung from the horizontal crossbar of children's swings. I am no expert on play equipment, but I imagine that that can only have done harm to play equipment in addition to its being an extremely intimidating activity for anybody using it. Furthermore, the practice is extremely harmful to the psychological and physical well-being of the dog.
	Fortunately, Hammersmith and Fulham council introduced a full set of dog control orders last year, and I have been told that they have been extremely effective. Our council takes the phenomena surrounding antisocial behaviour extremely seriously, and, as with almost everything else involving the council, things have improved enormously in the past two years.

Greg Knight: We are discussing not only antisocial behaviour, but, given the circumstances that my hon. Friend has described, animal cruelty. Is there not a good case for ensuring that owners who hang their dogs from trees are prosecuted and, let us hope, banned from keeping animals for a certain period of time?

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend's intervention takes me to my specific proposal, which is to make it a criminal offence to breed dogs for fighting. He is right to say that such practices involve more than antisocial behaviour and should be made a criminal offence.
	We have heard about BARK in Brent, and we have our own BARK—Borough Action for Responsible K9s—that takes a multi-agency approach to the problem and involves the council, the Metropolitan police, housing associations, the RSPCA and the Mayhew animal home. In the past few months, it has nipped several cases in the bud. For example, a pit bull terrier was found, photographed and sent off for seizure and, in other cases, owners have agreed to take training classes for their dogs. These are early days, but we are turning the picture round in Hammersmith and Fulham, although a number of serious incidents still happen.
	My only specific recommendation is the introduction of the offence of breeding dogs for fighting. More generally, we should cut bureaucracy around the issue, which is the point that the council has stressed to me most strongly—I know that other hon. Members have also made that point. Taking action on dangerous dogs is expensive given the kennel fees, and it can lead to an awful lot of paperwork for police officers and local authority officers.

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, which has been measured. They have provided constituency experiences, passion and a proud history on animal welfare. I did not congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, which was remiss of me, so I now extend my congratulations to him.
	One of the key themes running through the debate has been that of enforcement of the existing rules. The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition will have a review. As I said in my opening remarks, we have had a review in which we had a discussion on the matter with the police and agencies, and it is clear that there is a lack of enforcement, which is patchy across the piece. We have done two things: first, we have published a leaflet for members of the public to provide them with clarity about the law; and secondly, we have worked with the RSPCA and stakeholders, including some of the councils referred to in the debate, as well as the Association of Chief Police Officers. With financing from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that group will produce a guidance leaflet for enforcement agencies so that we can get that important uniformity we need across the piece.

Paul Truswell: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan R Shaw: No, I will not.
	We understand that ACPO is looking to form a police-wide group because it believes that the infrastructure is in place for the police service and local authorities to join up more. That is what hon. Members have asked for. We want that approach to develop, so we are looking forward to ACPO forming that group to assist us in that. The police would be the first to admit that enforcement of legislation could be improved, and I very much welcome the formation of that group. We could be motivated to rush to legislate, but we need that group to be formed. We need to give it time to consider the question of uniformity of enforcement across the piece.
	Examples have been given of where things are working well. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) said that there was a problem, but that the powers are now being used and things are better. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) said the same thing. I was very concerned about the cases in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and I shall look into them. Everyone agrees that enforcement is patchy, but before we rush to legislate, let us ensure that the rules on the statute book are clear and that the enforcing authorities have the means to put them to the test properly.
	Many hon. Members made some important points; as I said, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) talked about options available in the courts; they have a range of different measures available to them. For example, the Dogs Act 1871 allows a court to impose any order it thinks fit, and I can bring other orders to his attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea campaigned on the issue in his constituency, and he raised the issue of microchips. We think that enforcement of such a policy would be problematic, but we want to improve the situation.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) talked about his lazy dog, and I will tell him about the land-girls. He also received a Rottweiler intervention from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Both of them were around when the previous dangerous dogs legislation was introduced. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham gave some good examples of where his council is working well.
	We are grateful for the contributions of hon. Members. We take the matter very seriously. When we had that horrific case last January—
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Temporary Standing Order (Topical debates).

Private Business

Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords](By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), I should inform the House that although we are dealing principally with the Manchester City Council Bill, it will be in order for Members to refer, where appropriate, to any or all of the six Bills listed on the Order Paper.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following your ruling, can you intimate what will happen at the end of the proceedings? Will the Bills be voted on seriatim, or will they be voted on together?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: While a blocking motion is in place, they will not be voted on at all. We will see how the debate proceeds, but the position is not as it would be if we were discussing private Members' Bills. This is a different procedure, and the blocking motion prevents the Question from being put on the Second Reading of the other Bills.

Tony Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I suppose I should congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on his assiduity in managing to bring us six Bills for the price of one—a six-for-one offer of which many street traders would be proud.
	I shall try to be relatively brief. The Manchester City Council Bill and the five other Bills on the Order Paper seek to achieve a number of common purposes. There are slight variations between them, but essentially their purpose is to control street trading in six geographical areas, and to deal with a point of contention by regulating in a way different from that specified in the Pedlars Act 1871. The role of pedlars is, I think, the meat of the argument.
	Let me deal first with the way the Bill affects licensed street traders. In my city, the council has to a large extent worked in tandem with street traders, who are licensed under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and work within the framework of that legislation. On occasion, however, matters of concern arise. From time to time, it is obvious that even those with legitimate street trader licences are operating outside the spirit of the Act. The council is now asking for a power that already exists in London, Liverpool and a number of other cities: the power of seizure and forfeiture of goods that are being sold against the clear interests of the general public, such as counterfeit goods or goods that simply do not do what the traders claim that they do.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Can the hon. Gentleman be more specific about the type of goods involved? As we know, many pedlars sell a vast range of goods. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to white goods, goods brought in from overseas, or goods that are potentially illegal?

Tony Lloyd: Any of those might be involved. I should emphasise, however, that I am not yet talking specifically about those who use the pedlars licence. I am talking about those who apply for street traders licences. The distinction is important, as the meat and drink of the Bill applies to pedlars.

John Battle: One of the other councils bidding for a change in the rules is Leeds city council. It is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, so I think there is some political consensus on the matter. I understand that it is possible to obtain a pedlars licence from the police for £12.25, and then go to sell goods not in Leeds but in Blackpool. Would it not be better if the council controlled its own streets, and could use the street trading laws to regulate what is sold on the streets to ensure fairness for everyone in the vicinity?

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I shall come on to the specific question of pedlars shortly, as I first wish to clarify the situation concerning those using the street traders licence.
	Seizure and forfeiture are specific powers that are used in, for example, London to clear away the unregulated—those who abuse the street-trading licence system. The example is often given of hamburger and hot-dog sellers who operate in a way that is inconsistent with the licence and that causes public nuisance.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that anybody who regularly crosses Westminster bridge, as I do, would recognise the weakness even of seizure and forfeiture, because there are hamburger stalls on that bridge almost continuously, yet they do not seem to be seized or forfeited?

Tony Lloyd: I cannot, of course, speak on behalf of Westminster or Lambeth councils—I am not quite sure where in relation to the dividing line between them on the bridge these rogue traders operate—but the power does exist across London. The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in putting forward his points of view, so I am sure he could raise this matter with the Westminsters and the Lambeths in order to make sure they use the powers they have. I join him, however, in saying that the powers should be used—and Manchester, Leeds, Canterbury, Bournemouth and others want these powers under the street trading legislation.
	The second change to normal street trading would be the issuing of fixed penalty notices. They have been found to be useful to prevent acts such as littering. That is a relatively light penalty in the grand scheme of things: it does not revoke licences, but it does allow the local authority to have the control to prevent unnecessary public nuisance and to bring to the attention of traders the need to conform properly to their wider social duties.
	The final significant change in street trading licences is the extension of the current definition of simply "goods" to "goods or services". In my city, an issue has arisen to do with the provision of services such as teeth whitening. Many people think that, regardless of whether the provision of teeth-whitening services on the streets is desirable, that ought to come under the same form of regulation as the sale of goods such as wristwatches on the streets. Bringing in parallel provision for services and goods is a simple and necessary step, and I hope that there is agreement on it.

Paul Beresford: I cannot resist rising to say something about teeth whitening. There is ample legislation to deal with that through trading standards and in other ways. Let me explain what I find curious about the hon. Gentleman's position. There are a very few councils that wish to extend their powers—penalties and so forth—but the majority of the councils in this country do not. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents Manchester and this is a Manchester Bill and he probably feels obligated to carry it forward, but has he not questioned why just a few councils want to do this, and the rest seem to be able to manage?

Tony Lloyd: There are a few councils before us today, but there is an increasing demand for these issues to be dealt with through national legislation rather than individual private Bills. Although six councils have applied for these powers today, London, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Medway, Maidstone and the whole of Northern Ireland have already sought equivalent powers. The hon. Gentleman refers to there being just a few councils, but if he adds up the total population base of those before us today and those who already take these powers, he will discover that we are talking about quite a large slice of the country—and, more importantly perhaps, a large slice of those conurbations that see themselves as being affected by, and attractive to, those who want to use, and are occasionally prepared to abuse, the street licensing system.

Julian Brazier: Perhaps I could add to that point. The problem for a number of councils, including Canterbury city council, which I represent, is that disproportionate numbers of pedlars have descended on the city and at times in the summer our high street is completely blocked by vast numbers of them. Given that all three parties are now nominally committed to localism, surely allowing local authorities the power to have a dispensation in these matters is a good thing.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which partly answers the question asked by one of his colleagues a few moments ago. The real issue is not why so few or so many councils want this power; it is that, where councils want and need this power, there is great sense in ensuring that it is available. That is what we are debating today, and I am delighted that this clearly is not a party political debate—it is a debate that joins together Members from across the Chamber.

Brian Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason I proposed my Pedlars (Street Trading Regulations) Bill is because, apart from the six Bills before the House today and the seven that have already gone, there is, according to the Private Bill Office in this place, potential for 50 more of these Bills to be introduced? The Local Government Association has conducted a survey on my behalf, and we have received 74 responses from local authorities that very much want a Bill of this kind.

Tony Lloyd: That is a helpful piece of information. Of course, my hon. Friend has played a significant role in trying to get this concept at least debated in this Chamber and more generally.
	Perhaps it would be opportune if I were to turn to the area of greatest interest: the role of pedlars. The Pedlars Act 1871 gives a wonderful definition of a pedlar as
	"any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft".
	Even the strongest promoters of the role of the pedlar would accept that that definition is a little out of date and antiquated; it refers to a time long gone. However, the legislation that regulates pedlars is that Act of almost 140 years ago.
	I concede a point to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who I know has taken a keen interest in this matter. I do not want the remarks that I make today to be construed, in any sense, as dismissing the role of all pedlars, because there are pedlars who are perfectly legitimate traders seeking to provide a small service that adds colour to all our streets. I accept that the danger, as with any piece of legislation, is that we might make this legislation too heavy-handed. We do not want it to drive out the role of the genuinely desirable pedlar within that context. When Bournemouth borough council and Manchester city council presented their Bills to the upper House, they both gave certain undertakings about their recognising the need to treat with a light touch the role of those legitimate pedlars.
	It must be accepted, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said a few moments ago, that in some circumstances pedlars abuse the licence. Some pedlars operate way beyond anything either for which the pedlars licence was intended or even that it is accepted in modern times as trying to achieve. Pedlars can be a nuisance on our streets and, because of the way the pedlars licensing system operates, they operate in a very different way from legitimate street traders.
	A pedlars licence can be obtained virtually anywhere in the country by anyone claiming to have good character and who is resident in the area for no more than one month. I am told that the checking by the police, who issue pedlars licences, is minimal and the concept of "good character" is not properly defined. Any pedlar given a licence in any part of the country can move to any other part of the country with the same licence and operate as a pedlar. That means that pedlars operate under a very different framework from those with street traders licences. First, the pedlars licence is massively cheaper, and some may say that that is an advantage. Those with a pedlars licence have a commercial advantage over street traders, and that is seen as unfair by those who operate market stalls or who have proper street licences. They not only pay a bigger fee and make a contribution to the community more generally, but accept a tighter framework of regulation on their operations, in accordance with local need.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman seems to be attacking the Greater Manchester police authority for not complying with its statutory responsibilities in respect of the issuing of pedlars certificates. Can he tell the House how many pedlars certificates Manchester police have issued in the past year? In Dorset, by contrast, thorough checks are made on people who apply for pedlars certificates, so it may be an issue for the police rather than for Parliament.

Tony Lloyd: It may be a matter for the police, but in my city the problem is that it is not necessarily the Greater Manchester police who issue the pedlars licences to the pedlars who peddle on the streets of Manchester. I am delighted to learn that pedlars in Dorset are reliably checked, and no doubt we welcome every Dorset pedlar on the streets of Manchester. It may be that the pedlars who cause the nuisance and who run off with their goods when approached—and when asked if they pay tax, run even more quickly—are not from Dorset, but from other areas where the character check is not as rigorous as that performed by the estimable Dorset police force.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making a cogent case. Is not the real problem that, whatever one's view of pedlars—under the present legislation they are entitled to peddle—it is very difficult to bring a prosecution against someone who abuses the rules? They have to be monitored and warned, and it is time consuming and expensive for any police authority to bring a prosecution against them. It is therefore very difficult under existing legislation to do anything about the small number who bring the rest into disrepute.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right and that is the nub of the problem. Let us accept happily that many pedlars operate in a way of which we would all approve. However, there are those who abuse the pedlars licence in various ways, such as by their trading methods or by selling items of dubious value. The innocent customer may be unable to obtain redress in the event of product or service failure, because the pedlar is long gone by the time the product is found to be defective. Sometimes, as in my city and, obviously, in Canterbury, the individual's behaviour is assertive or aggressive—or the collective behaviour of a group of pedlars leads to the same level of social deterioration. In any case, it is difficult to enforce any sanction under the present legislation.
	The police do not see this as a priority. In my city, they are quite busy with a number of other issues. It is more appropriate that it should be for the local authority to enforce the legislation through other means, but they need the power to do so—

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has left the most important example off his list, although he mentions some valid problems. Pedlars are meant to be mobile, but many stay in one place. A council can take a view on how many street licences it should issue, but then finds that many people claiming to be pedlars stay on its high street, and that is the problem.

Tony Lloyd: Again, the hon. Gentleman moves me on to my next point. That is what is unfair about the pedlar who abuses the system. Stall holders who pay business rates, operate in a proper framework of regulation and demonstrate a proper desire to work with the local authority and the wider community face competition, which they accept goes with the street trader licence, albeit that the licence carries fewer overheads and all the rest. Street traders and shopkeepers find themselves disadvantaged when they are in competition with the pedlar, who has no regulation and can effectively sell what he wants because of the almost total lack of control that we have discussed. The problem in all that is that the ability to control the pedlar is minimal.
	Although the concept of peddling is, in common-sense terms, one of constant movement—the door-to-door trader, or even the person who walks the streets with helium-filled balloons or miniature kites, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is concerned about—the person with the fixed stand on wheels has to move only every 20 minutes, as case law has demonstrated. As long as the stall is effectively mobile enough to move a matter of yards down the street, the person can avoid the street trader legislation and, as a pedlar, producing a peddling licence, can say, "I am operating within the technical limits of the law." The technical limits of the law are not fair to the proper street trader or stall holder.

Paul Truswell: Has not my hon. Friend put his finger on one of the major logistical problems of enforcing the legislation as it stands, which is keeping track of whether pedlars are moving every 20 minutes or not?

Tony Lloyd: In the end, that is the real issue. Do we really want the police to spend huge amounts of time chasing round and checking after 19 minutes and 59 seconds whether the pedlar has moved far enough away to guarantee that they fit the framework of the Pedlars Act? Of course, it would be nonsense to ask for that to be done. Both the local authority and the police would end up spending massive amounts of time, sometimes intensely in short bursts, to try to rectify a problem that would simply come back again as soon as the intense effort disappeared. That is central to the case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am interested in the genesis of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. When he originally discussed it with his council, did he discuss the alternatives? Has he discussed the alternatives with those on his Front Bench? Would it not have been better to bring forward national legislation to deal with the problem across the entire country rather than dealing with it one council at a time? Surely if we deal with it one council at a time, we could be merely transporting the problem to a neighbouring council.

Tony Lloyd: Both parts of the hon. Gentleman's question are legitimate. That would be desirable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening to that plea, which he will hear from all sides of the debate. The most sensible way forward is to have a national framework. It is better in any case, because—let me be honest—I would not recommend the private Bill process to anybody. It is arcane and difficult and it gives disproportionate influence to those who oppose the Bill. They are right to exercise that opposition—I am not complaining—but it would be better to have the debate in the context of a national framework, which could allow local variation. Not all local authorities would need to buy into it if they did not want to—it would not be mandatory. A national framework would be better.

Sarah Teather: To pick up on that point, a general law, of which the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is an example, would allow councils to adopt that measure through byelaw. It would allow secondary legislation to create a national model and it would increase transparency for those itinerant traders who move across borders. They would not know whether there was a law enacted, but they would know what type of law it would be if it were.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Lady is right and what she says very helpful, as it shows that there is joined-up, cross-party agreement on the need for action. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch and my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that there is no downside to our moving forward together on this matter.

Brian Iddon: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the utter waste of public money involved in all this? Each of the Bills before us costs its local authority about £100,000, given the amount of their officers' time that is taken up. The one for Newcastle is alleged to have cost nearly £200,000.

Tony Lloyd: If anyone could do the calculation faster than I, it would be my hon. Friend. An awful lot of pedlars licences would have to be sold to get back the £100,000 that it costs to promote such a Bill. It would make a lot of sense not to go through the private Bill procedure and to have national legislation instead, but at the moment we have a patchwork: some authorities have got their private Bills through the House already, and, as has been noted, many more are in the pipeline. The private Bill procedure is not a sensible way to introduce common standards of this type. A different approach would be better.

Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is being very convincing. He has convinced me that we should drop these Bills here and now and look to the Government for some national legislation. The financial savings would be enormous, and we would not be puzzling over the reasoning now.

Tony Lloyd: I am reasonably grateful for that intervention. If the hon. Gentleman could promise me that he will persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to agree to what I am proposing before the end of today, I would cheerfully go along with him. In the short term, however, I must keep my promise to the beleaguered citizens of the city of Manchester and its good traders—whether they are shop traders, street traders or pedlars—that we will introduce proper regulation to deal with rogues by pursuing the private Bill before us.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument. I hope that we get an opportunity later to speak to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which is very similar to the one for Manchester. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is about to leave the Chamber, but before he does so I hope that I can convince him on the need to rely on local legislation in the absence of proposals from this Government, or from the Conservative Government who will follow after a general election. Each council that has to put up with illegal pedlars has to pay out far more than £200,000. Every prosecution costs at least £1,000, but each pedlar who is found guilty is fined only £100. Does my hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Gentleman—agree that that is absolute madness?

Tony Lloyd: I can be the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend today, that is okay. Of course I agree with him, and he is right to say that the problem facing the people of Bournemouth exactly parallels the cases described by the hon. Member for Canterbury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), and others. Exactly the same problem affects my own city.
	I hope that I have done enough to show how the changes proposed in Bill will have an impact on street trading, and I am pleased that we have begun to debate the specific difficulties to do with pedlars.

Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Lloyd: I want to make a few final remarks, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has told the House why he favours this Bill. In the interests of balance, will he say why some people in Manchester have petitioned against it? I believe that they include a Mr. David Murphy.

Tony Lloyd: As far as I am aware, there has been one petition in relation to Greater Manchester. It was presented to the other place, when the Bill was being considered there. The petitioner—quite rightly under our procedures—had the opportunity to be heard by Members of the other place, and it is important that people who object to a proposal are able to make their case there. In fact, I think the individual named wanted to get rid of the parts of the Bill dealing with pedlars.
	I understand the arguments for pedlars and the arguments of those who seek to defend the rights of legitimate small traders. None of us wants them to disappear. As I said, the sellers of mini-kites and those who add fun and flavour to a hot day by selling children's balloons cause little nuisance and none of us would want that activity to be snuffed out. However, we want recognition that some people with a pedlars licence abuse the system—people who grab their goods and run down the street quickly when approached by the local authority. Such people are difficult to apprehend and control. They are engaged in activities that are not in the public interest; they sell inadequate goods and services and offer no redress to the customers they short-change. They operate in a way that the right hon. Gentleman would not countenance from traders in shops in his constituency. He should not expect the people of Canterbury, Bournemouth, Leeds or Manchester, or any of the areas that already have the powers or want them, to forgo regulation simply from the romantic view that all pedlars must be a good thing—they are not.

Christopher Chope: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. May I press him a little more on the situation in Manchester? The Bill applies only to the city of Manchester. He did not answer my question about how many pedlars certificates had been issued by the Greater Manchester police authority. In fact, I can provide him with the answer—204 were issued last year. Were the hon. Gentleman's Bill to become law, those pedlars would not be able to operate in the city of Manchester with the freedom they have enjoyed hitherto, but they would be able to operate elsewhere in Greater Manchester. Will that not merely transfer the problem, just as under the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill problems in Bournemouth would be transferred to Poole or Christchurch?

Tony Lloyd: I think I should allow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) to answer the question about Christchurch.
	The city of Manchester is the centre of a conurbation and an historical retailing hub, and it is the place that is the most attractive to pedlars. There is an out of town shopping centre—the Trafford centre, which is quite well known—but it is private property and no pedlar would be able to enter it to operate as a pedlar. One of the anachronisms in the legal status is that where people may be a real or potential nuisance, a private shopping space can refuse to allow them on the premises—the Trafford centre almost certainly would—but in public spaces, such as the city of Manchester, there are no regulations for moving pedlars on, whatever nuisance they cause.
	I accept that there are decent pedlars whom none of us would want to snuff out, but there are others who abuse the system in all the six areas whose Bills we are discussing. The rogue pedlars—the difficult pedlars—not only give a bad name to those we want to support, but they cause great public nuisance either simply by their presence or by their unacceptable trading activities.

Robert Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously looked closely at the potential impact of the legislation. Other places have introduced similar legislation, so can he describe its impact there to help some of us on the Conservative Benches to make up our minds? How many pedlars in the Manchester area have had their licence revoked, for example?

Tony Lloyd: It is not really a question of revoking pedlars licences. The point has been made several times, but I will repeat it for the hon. Gentleman's consideration. It actually does not matter how many pedlars licences are issued by the Greater Manchester police, because the people who peddle in Manchester may come from Dorset, Devon or Northumberland. A pedlars licence is national, which is one of the difficulties, because although it is necessary for street traders to be licensed locally, a pedlars licence can apply anywhere.
	When a trader is licensed locally, there is local control—the sort of localism of which most people in the House would probably approve. With the pedlar, that localism does not apply—people with accents rich and varied from the many parts of this great nation of ours can come into Manchester. The problem is that among them are the people who sell dodgy watches, counterfeit goods and goods and services that simply do not work and rip off the public, or the people whose behaviour—through aggression or simply through sheer volume—is unacceptable.
	That problem has been controlled in areas where the powers have already been taken, such as here in London. Despite the concerns of the hon. Member for Christchurch about Westminster bridge, be there nothing so fair, the truth is that the powers have been used successfully, for example, to control pedlars and to prevent their setting up hotdog and hamburger stalls, which traditionally caused a nuisance in this city.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time, but I do not understand one aspect of what he says about rude or aggressive people or people who sell illegal things. The Bill will not stop that. Those people will simply continue their trade and run away even faster when the police or trading standards officers come to get them. That has been proved in London and elsewhere, where the problem has continued. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, I think—I may be taking words out of his mouth—that 200 traders come to his constituency from overseas, mainly from Poland and so on.

Julian Brazier: I did not say 200.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: An awful lot of traders come from overseas, including Poland. I correct myself; it was my fault, not my hon. Friend's. That situation will continue regardless of the legislation before us. It will happen anyway, will it not?

Tony Lloyd: If there is a properly recognised local licensing scheme, whereby individuals have to apply to the local authority in the area in which they seek to trade, it will give the local authority significantly more power to determine who is there. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether such a scheme will prevent the person who operates without a licence coming in, I should say that it will not of itself prevent that. However, it will give the local authority clear powers regarding the circumstances in which such people can be moved on.
	The current problem is not the person who operates without a licence, but that, very cheaply and easily, people can obtain a pedlars licence and purport to trade sensibly. It is very difficult for the local authorities to control under the law as it currently applies.

Robert Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for giving way—he is being very generous with his time. Is he not concerned that in Manchester, for example, an annual street trading licence costs £625 a year, whereas a pedlars licence costs, I believe, £12.25? A severe blow could be dealt to somebody who is trying to go about an honest and honourable business.

Tony Lloyd: I am concerned, but not necessarily for the reason that the hon. Gentleman invites me to be concerned. I am concerned because the legitimate street trader, who in Manchester pays £625 and operates in conformity with the rules and regulations agreed by the local authority and the street traders, is in competition with somebody who does not conform to those standards, who undercuts the street trader and who operates more marginally with respect to regulation. In those ways, the hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important point: the unfairness is not necessarily against the pedlar who might face an increased licence fee, but against the street trader and the shopkeeper who face competition that, on occasions, is more than a little dubious. The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to that economic impact, but in almost the opposite way to that which he intended.

Paul Truswell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Lloyd: I shall, but then I must make progress by sitting down.

Paul Truswell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene once again. Is there not another issue in Manchester, whereby the local authority would want to restrict trade by any trader in a particular location, perhaps because it was dangerous? The authority could prevent people who have a street trading licence from trading there, but not pedlars.

Tony Lloyd: That is correct. In fact, in one part of my city, there is an agreement with the street traders that there is no street trading at all. The street traders accept that, but of course, there is no restriction on the pedlars. They therefore become a nuisance to the extent that those same street traders invade areas that are designated and accepted as being for other purposes.
	I have opened this debate and we have already had a lively exchange. I hope that that the hon. Member for Christchurch has been reassured about the intention behind the Bill and that his remarks will be more succinct than they would have been had I not given way to him and his colleagues. That would be appropriate, given that Members from other parts of the country whose Bills are before Parliament today want to say a few words.
	I shall resume my seat having said this: I really hope that the House will accept that although issues such as the need to protect the good pedlar may unite us—although we may be divided on how to do that—the most appropriate way to move forward is to let the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills, which have been petitioned against, go through the special Committee process and to let the other Bills go forward to the unopposed Bill Committee, as they are not objected to. In that way, proper examination can take place of the merits of the Bills, which would allow those with doubts to pursue them in a way that allows proper examination.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Tony Lloyd: I give way for the very last time.

Christopher Chope: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Earlier, he made a point about costs. If what he has just described happens, it would mean that council tax payers in the boroughs involved would incur expenditure that could be avoided if the Minister made a statement that this would all be taken back by the Government and that there would be national legislation.

Tony Lloyd: I am glad that I am bringing the hon. Gentleman with me, at least on part of the issue; I look forward to his joining me completely. Yes, I hope that the Minister can announce some way of making progress nationally, as that would give significant help to most of us, but I am not sure that I expect such an announcement today. If it happens, I shall be very happy. If not, those linked to the six private Bills and the areas to which they refer will legitimately want progress to be made in this Chamber—today, we hope—so that a more intense debate can take place in the parts of our parliamentary scrutiny processes that can get to the meat and drink of how we regulate and in a way that is consistent with all our ambitions.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has Mr. Speaker received notification from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) about whether he has taken the Chiltern hundreds or any other office of profit under the Crown?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I am unable to assist the right hon. Gentleman in that respect; I have no such knowledge. As and when there are developments, I understand that they will appear in the Votes and Proceedings of the House.
	For the sake of complete accuracy, I should add to the ruling that I gave in response to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I assumed that he was referring to what would happen to the Bills if the three-hour period had been completed, and the advice that I gave was correct in that sense. However, if proceedings on the first Bill that we are discussing were completed within the three-hour period, and before all the time had been exhausted, it would then, of course, be possible for the House to proceed to the second and subsequent Bills. I hope that I have made the position entirely clear.

Greg Knight: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fear not.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify something that arises out of what you have just told the House? Are you saying that, if the debate on the Manchester Bill were concluded before the allotted time, you would allow us to debate the other Bills, or that you would seek to put the Questions on the other Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the proceedings on the first Bill had been entirely completed, there would be scope for further debate on the other Bills in such remaining time as existed. I hope that the matter is now clear.

Tobias Ellwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your clarification. I apologise that I was a minute late for the beginning of today's proceedings. Obviously, I want to support the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. When should I speak on that? Should my contribution be part of the discussion of the Manchester City Council Bill, or should I wait until the business on that has concluded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I gave a ruling on that at the very outset. The Bills are being debated together, so it would be perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to seek to catch my eye at any time.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I oppose the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, and not the others. The six Bills before us are all slightly different. Would it be in order to speak now about the difference between the six Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had hoped that I had made that clear in my original statement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am mindful of the fact that the sponsor of the Manchester City Council Bill, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), is present; I congratulate him on opening the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) are here to represent their areas. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) are here as they have an interest in Leeds. I do not believe that anyone connected with Nottingham is present.  [Interruption.] I had forgotten; importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is here to represent the interests of Reading. I congratulate all of them.
	The private Bill procedure being used by the House today is arcane. For the sake of absolute clarity, it is totally different from the private Member's Bill procedure. I have great knowledge of private Bill procedure, because within a fortnight of coming to this place, I was approached by my party's deputy Chief Whip, who asked what I was doing in a fortnight's time. Rather naively, I said, "Nothing in particular." He said, "Then I'd like you to serve on the Committee considering the British Waterways Bill." A year and a half later, we were still debating that private Bill, so I understand what is involved in the procedure relating to the private Bill that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central has brought before the House.
	I also understand the great difficulty that the local authorities involved face in trying to get their Bill enacted under that arcane procedure. Probably one of the greatest services that we could do those local authorities, the House and the country today is to try to press the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to hold an overarching review of the way in which the market system works. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) did the House a huge service by introducing a Bill under the private Member's Bill procedure. Unfortunately, his Bill faltered, but I think that he was on the right lines. He wanted an amendment to section 3 and schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to regulate the problem across the country. Previous private Bills on the same subject that have been enacted did exactly that. They—and, on the whole, the six Bills before us—insert the provisions of the Pedlars Act 1871 in paragraph (2)(a) of schedule 4 to the 1982 Act, so that pedlars are included in the schedule. I think that that is what the Bill of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East sought to do.

Julian Brazier: With his legal mind, my hon. Friend has gone right to the heart of the issue. What he says surely explains the debate that we have had across the Chamber on national versus local. The problem is that there is a piece of national legislation that rides roughshod over local rules and regulations. That is why, locally, we have to find a way of getting round the problem piecemeal, although the most sensible thing to do would be to have a national framework that allowed each council to decide what to do locally, on this matter and on others.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Today, if we get a commitment from the Minister, we will have advanced a huge amount. I suspect that the sponsors speaking for the councils involved would then not be too upset if their Bill fell through.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: A host of people are trying to intervene on me. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, was first.

Tobias Ellwood: If the Minister today supported the seeming consensus that there should be a review of the legislation, would my hon. Friend be willing to take up the issue in 2010, when it is clear that there may be a change of Government?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend on two counts. I can assure him that I have the utmost confidence that there will be a change of Government, whenever the Government choose to call a general election. On the assumption that we will assume government shortly, I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will want to look at the problem in the round, with a view to deciding whether a change in legislation is appropriate.

Tobias Ellwood: If the Minister were willing to do some work on the issue now, it would not be in vain because we would pick it up after a general election.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has pressed the Minister, and I am confident that the Minister has some good news for us. It would be very useful if the Government did the right thing, which would save us the job when we come into government.
	On a serious point, if the hon. Member for Manchester, Central is right that there are in the pipeline up to 50 more Bills similar to those that we are dealing with today, all of which the Chairman of Ways and Means will have to find time for, I do not know how the House will deal with them, not to mention the cost to those 50 local authorities. Given the cost of the six Bills before us, it would be much more sensible for the Minister to initiate an overarching review of the process. I press him strongly on that and hope he will have some good news.

Paul Truswell: A picture is developing over the days and weeks. Earlier we debated dangerous dogs and although the critique from those on the Opposition Benches was first class, all the Opposition promised was a review. The hon. Gentleman's critique so far is first class, but all he is promising is a review. What role will the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) play in influencing the outcome of that review?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is a little unkind. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his hon. Friend the Minister, who is in a position to do something about the problem. I am in a position only to offer prospectively to look at it. I am sure we will be able to do that.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is aware that Bills on Newcastle upon Tyne, Liverpool, Leicester, Medway, Maidstone, the whole of Northern Ireland and London have already passed. They are all slightly different, as my hon. Friend knows. Will the framework agreement mean having to ask all those councils and the Greater London authority to scrap all that, go back to the drawing board and start again?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend asks me a technical question. My own view on the matter is that if we reviewed the framework on a national basis, most of the private Bills would be unnecessary and would be revoked. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, it would be much better to deal with the problem in the round, on a national basis, for a number of reasons—partly because some of the miscreants can go from one place to another, get a certificate for £12.50, undercutting all the street traders, whose average licence costs £500, £600 or £700, do a bit of peddling in one place, say, in Manchester city, and move on somewhere else close by, do their peddling and, if they are of that bent, cause a problem in another area. The problem must be dealt with in the round, or it causes distortion and moves the problem from one area to another.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his major policy announcement. When the policy is developed, will he ensure that he has with him a transcript of the debate on Radio Solent this morning, in which it became apparent that there is tremendous public sympathy for lawful pedlars? There would be much concern at his remarks about almost making miscreants equivalent to lawful pedlars. Rogue traders and lawful pedlars are two different categories.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I regret to say that I cannot listen to every local programme, so I was not able to listen to the programme from the Solent, but when the study is undertaken I have no doubt that those undertaking it will want to pay close attention to the transcript of Radio Solent's programme.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as I wish to make it clear that we on the Conservative Benches and, I am sure, the Government and the Liberal Benches as well, do not in any way want to stigmatise lawful pedlars. I make that clear. It is only the small minority who cause a nuisance. It is they who have caused us all to be here this afternoon. That is the problem that we need to deal with.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend not be blown off course by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) because it is quite clear that a review is the way forward? If we are to legislate, we should do so on the basis of evidence that has been properly collected and collated, not merely on the basis of the whingeing of a few chief council officers who are unhappy about not getting their hands on the fees paid for pedlars certificates because they were bought elsewhere.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend's remarks are very important. I can assure him that we will not be blown off course by anybody. We will want to take evidence from anyone who wishes to give it to us, frankly, including—and I am absolutely certain of this—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is a great expert on this subject and will no doubt have a great deal to say in giving evidence.
	Much has been said about pedlars. One fairly easy way of dealing with the problem is to include them in a schedule, which in my view would give a local authority a power, not a duty. In other words, each local authority would have the power to take action against pedlars if they caused a problem in their area, but they would not be obliged to do so. We should look carefully into that.
	It is interesting in that context to look at the Pedlars Act 1871. It may come as a surprise to most people—it certainly came as a surprise to me—that this Act, drawn up more than 100 years ago, contains a definition that is effectively the nub of what we are debating today. I refer to section 3 of the Act:
	"In this Act, if not inconsistent with the context, the following terms have the meanings hereinafter respectively assigned to them; that is to say,—
	The term 'pedlar' means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft".
	That is a wide-ranging definition and the opportunities for mischief within it are correspondingly wide.
	That is why I say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central that it is very difficult to bring a prosecution—precisely for some of the reasons that he adduced—because it means watching people. Somebody—the police or somebody else—has to watch such people, see how long they stay in one place before moving on, ensure that the goods they sell are of merchandisable quality and that they do not abuse the street-trading regulations. They must be genuine pedlars. I gather that they have to be warned at least once and if they commit an offence a second time, which involves more monitoring and more watching, the police may be able to bring a prosecution. It would be interesting to know from the Minister how many prosecutions have been brought for contraventions of those market laws, not only by pedlars, but by other market traders. We should remember that these Bills deal with market traders as well as pedlars.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

Robert Wilson: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My goodness, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), who has not intervened before.

Robert Wilson: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what he means when he talks about local authorities having the power, but not the duty, to act in these cases? Does he mean council officers going out and seizing goods; does he mean informing the police; does he mean informing trading standards officers? What exactly does he mean?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of Acts contain powers for local authorities to do things, but not duties to do so. What that actually means is that if the proper standing orders and resolutions were passed in their particular council, an authority would be able to make use of an Act's provisions, which, as I have argued, should be overarching. Those provisions will be framed in such a way that the councils will be able to regularise the activities of pedlars and other market traders along the lines that I have suggested. We do not want to make it an absolute duty on every local authority to have to exercise those powers if they do not wish to do so. For example, if the councils of some of my hon. Friends, perhaps including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East, feel that they have a problem, they would have the ability to exercise regulatory powers against pedlars and other market traders, but they would not be obliged to do so.

Robert Wilson: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I see that my hon. Friend is still puzzled, so I give way to him again.

Robert Wilson: Can my hon. Friend explain where such powers do not exist currently?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The powers, as I have said, are currently contained in that definition of pedlars. The problem, as has been amply demonstrated, is that pedlars can get a certificate for £12.71 on very little evidence of good character and then peddle in any area of the country they want. That is fine if they do the job on a genuine peddling basis, but if they misbehave—and the opportunities for misbehaving under that definition are huge—it is difficult to prosecute.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: One of the definitions in the six Bills, which are all slightly different, is of "perishable goods". What happens if perishable goods are seized by one council, but another council has a different policy? The person concerned will sue the council that has seized the goods, because they will have a right to do so. Until we sort out that mess and a framework is put in statute, the difficulty will be people not understanding what they are meant to be doing and therefore having recourse against the council.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He, too, is a great expert in the subject, so I am sure that he has read the transcript of the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the other place. Noble Lords touched on that precise problem, which is one reason why it needs to be dealt with nationally, so that it is quite clear how goods that are seized, and perishable goods in particular, have to be dealt with. That would probably involve keeping them in cool conditions for up to 24 or 48 hours, to allow for appeal, after which they would be destroyed. However, those are matters that we would want to take evidence on in our overarching review, to ensure that the proposal was workable.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. The fact that a genuine pedlar applies for a licence in one part of the country and during the year trades in another is not of itself offensive or behaviour that should be outlawed. Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House when he said that a pedlar can get a certificate with very little evidence of good character? As I understand it, the police check their database when an application is made. It is not for the applicant to prove his character. If the police see that he does not have a record, he clearly is of good character.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend makes a number of points. I stress again that we on the Conservative Front Bench—and, I am sure, those on the Government Front Bench—do not in any way wish to stigmatise pedlars. Those who go about their business in a lawful way are fully entitled to do so. The problem is that those who cause a nuisance are likely to be shifted from one area to another. If they find that the policing regime in one area is too onerous, they will move to another area where the police are overstretched and do not have time to deal with the problem.
	Although he did not actually say this, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch indicated that the Manchester Bill applies only to Manchester city. If the Manchester city police were to police the matter rigorously, the pedlars and other street traders—we are not talking about just pedlars—would move on to Greater Manchester or nearby areas. That is the crux of the problem and why it is so difficult to deal with the problem locally.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is in danger of misleading himself about the complexity of the law relating to pedlars. It is the view of Philip Hyde, in his seminal work "Local Authority Licensing and Registration", that the law in this area is pretty clear.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The law may be clear, but I am sure that the learned gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers has not said that it is easy to secure a prosecution against someone who has committed a crime.

Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will happily give way, but for the last time, as I want to give other hon. Members a chance to speak.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's exchange with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is interesting because the problem is that the pedlar's behaviour can be perfectly legal but still amount to nuisance. The issue is not the law's lack of clarity, but its lack of effectiveness in giving remedy to communities that suffer the excesses of those pedlars who are indifferent to their needs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman made a particularly interesting point in his speech: when the definition of pedlars in the 1871 Act was framed, people were much less mobile. There were no motor cars; one could not simply hop in a motor car and go from Manchester to Bournemouth and cause a nuisance there. We live in a totally different age and face a different problem from the one faced by our forefathers when the Act was introduced.
	The hon. Gentleman made the interesting point in his previous intervention that one or two or even half a dozen pedlars might not cause a nuisance, but if several hundred pedlars are present in one point, which I understand is the issue faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, the scale of the problem is very different. Pedlars are also a problem, even if they are acting within the law, if they undercut the lawful competition of ordinary street traders. As has been said, a pedlar can get a pedlars certificate for £12.71, whereas the average licence for a street trader is between £500 and £700—a different order of magnitude. Different laws apply to street traders from those that apply to pedlars. On the whole, the law for pedlars is easier than the law for street traders, which is quite onerous in many respects.
	If the Bills fall today, will the Minister undertake on behalf of the Government to have a comprehensive, overarching look at the whole issue of street trading, including market traders and pedlars, with a view to bringing forward legislation when time allows? Does he agree that dealing with the matter on an authority-by-authority basis is unsatisfactory, for the reasons adduced in the debate today—notably, the distortional effect and the different regimes encompassed by each individual local authority Bill? If he will undertake a review of the whole subject, how long does he expect that to take, and when might he conclude a review and bring forward legislation? If we can get solid answers to those problems, he will have moved the whole matter forward. The House would then congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on having originally raised and tried to solve the matter on a national basis, which is surely the approach on which the Government ought to make progress. We look forward very much to hearing the Minister's comments.

Gareth Thomas: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), whose opening remarks reminded me of the one previous time that I engaged seriously with private Bill business. It was on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill and a particularly traumatic experience, because a combination of the chief executive of the City of London and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) ensured that that Bill took an awfully long time to get through the House. As a result of that formative experience, I have studiously avoided private Bill business up to now.
	Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to represent the Government in this debate, not least for the opportunity to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I was almost tempted to say that he made an extremely cogent case for the Bill that he sponsors today—I say "almost tempted" because, as he will understand, it is a tradition that Governments do not offer views on private Bills. That, and the fact that he lumped me in with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), makes me hesitate to endorse completely the points that he made. Nevertheless, he dealt with many of the points that Opposition Members raised with him.
	The Government have reflected on the opinions set out in letters to my Department from town centre managers and bodies representing licensed street traders, and on how the proposed legislation might alter the framework of law that affects street trading, and indeed the very old statute that relates to certified pedlary. I understand why some local authorities favour the changes set out in the Bills, and I recognise that some face particular difficulties with street trading. It is true that some of the difficulties may be caused by certified pedlars, but difficulties may equally be caused by traders acting outside either street trading or pedlar legislation.
	Unsurprisingly, some of the views stated in the debate echo the sentiments expressed by some noble Lords who contributed to the debate on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill last November in the other place. As has been made clear, a number of interested parties believe strongly that there should be additional national street trading legislation.
	As well as the views expressed on one side of the debate, other views of course need to be considered. I am sure that some hon. Members have constituents who make their living as certified pedlars and whose livelihoods may be affected by changes to the law. Equally, some constituents whose interests are represented by hon. Members will benefit from the activity of legitimate pedlars. Their views must also be considered.
	As I made clear, it is not my role to offer a view on behalf of the Government on the contents of the private Bills. It is my specific role to confirm my view that the Bills' promoters have undertaken a full assessment of their compatibility with the European convention on human rights and that we do not see a need to dispute their conclusions.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold and, I suspect, one or two others raised the specific issue of the number of similar private Bills affecting the regulation of licensed street trading and certified pedlary. Seven private pieces of legislation affect street trading in addition to the Bills under discussion. However, hon. Members should bear it in mind that that is in the context of 410 city and borough councils in England and Wales. In saying that, I acknowledge that further similar private Bills may be introduced later this year. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has led a campaign, including through the private Member's Bill that he has introduced, for a national street trading Act, creating additional local authority powers to regulate street trading and pedlary.
	The evidence at the moment for national legislation across all 410 local authority borough and district councils in England and Wales remains unclear. I have no doubt that there are particular problems in some areas, as some hon. Members have alluded to in the debate. However, it is not clear whether they are spread nationwide. In principle, it is our view that they are local matters best tackled in communities by local authorities.

Tobias Ellwood: Is the Minister saying that the matter is to be dealt with by local authorities and that he will therefore endorse the Bills? If he is saying that there is not enough evidence for a national decision to be made and a national Bill to be put through, how does he square the circle with the fact that some areas of Britain—namely places such as the whole of Northern Ireland and, indeed, London, Medway, Liverpool and Leicester—have already had this legislation? We find ourselves in a strange position that surely needs to be reconciled.

Gareth Thomas: What I said was that the evidence in favour of national legislation is still unclear. As for our view as a Government, I have made it clear that the Government have no particular view, as is traditional in the case of private Bills.

Sarah Teather: The Minister says that it is unclear whether we need national legislation, and I agree that a uniform piece of national legislation giving all councils these powers immediately may not be what is required. However, enabling councils to adopt the powers by means of secondary legislation—a byelaw, for example—would allow local decision making while also maintaining a transparent framework.

Gareth Thomas: That is an interesting point, with which I shall deal a little later.

Brian Iddon: Clause 2 of my private Member's Bill would give local authorities the power to adopt the measures in this Bill in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather).

Gareth Thomas: As I said earlier, my hon. Friend has led a very effective campaign in favour of national legislation, but I repeat that my view and that of the Government more generally is that the evidence is unclear.

Paul Truswell: What evidence does my hon. Friend need to be persuaded of the validity of the case? As has been pointed out, some authorities are already able to exercise the powers sought by the six that we are discussing.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend's point is similar to the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), although he made it in a different way. If he will allow me to make a little progress, he may welcome some of what I am about to say.
	We should not forget that local authorities are already able to tackle illegal street trading, and street traders selling counterfeit or dangerous goods. Last November in the other place, Lord Bach observed that enforcement officers already undertake activity to regulate the streets. In practice, that means that they can conduct initial advisory discussions with unlicensed traders, that they can counsel those traders to obtain the necessary licence or pedlars certificate, and that they can—and do—tell them the consequences of continuing to trade outside the law. They can take action resulting in a fine of up to £1,000 against a persistent unlicensed trader who has already been subject to oral and written warnings.
	Last November, the Government introduced the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill. Part 3 will, where appropriate, allow local authorities and other regulators to impose a range of administrative sanctions as an alternative to criminal prosecution when enforcing existing legislation. The Pedlars Act 1871 is within the scope of part 3, and the new powers—including, in particular, fixed monetary penalties—could be used by local authorities as an alternative to prosecuting those involved in pedlary without a licence. When implemented, the powers in part 3 may reduce the need for the promotion of individual private Bills.
	I have reflected further, however, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, on the debate in the other place back in November, and on the fact that, as a number of Members have made clear, there is considerable—albeit not uniform—interest in further powers throughout the local authority world. As a result, I have initiated a research project led by Durham university, which will consider the current position, whether the existing powers are sufficient, albeit underused, and what—if any—different powers would be useful to the tackling of problems relating to street trading in our towns and cities.
	Should the evidence resulting from that forthcoming research project demonstrate that there is a case for national legislation, we will assess the options available to us. Towards the end of the year, we will publish a report on the Department's website setting out the research findings and the Government's views on the appropriate next steps. It would not be right for me to commit to national legislation before we have the evidence base to justify the case for that. It is clear that there are particular problems in particular areas, which is why a series of local authorities have brought forward individual Bills to deal with the problems that they feel exist in their areas. It is for the House to take a judgment on the merit, or otherwise, of those Bills.

Julian Brazier: The announcement the Minister has just made is, of course, welcome, but can we be clear about the ground rules? The central problem with pedlars is that they are supposed to move but some of them choose to cluster in very large numbers at a limited number of locations, thereby effectively acting as street traders, not pedlars. I urge the Minister to say that if it can be shown that a number—albeit, perhaps, a small minority—of areas have a problem, that should be sufficient grounds for moving to the sort of national framework for which many Members on both sides of the House have called?

Gareth Thomas: As I have said, we will be conducting research. The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point, and the Durham university researchers who will be conducting the research for us will, of course, want to refer to our debate today. I will make sure that his point, and other specific and important points that other Members have raised, are drawn to the researchers' attention.

Tony Lloyd: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Minister's remarks as a significant indication of progress. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raises an important point. Few people argue for national legislation in the sense of uniform legislation from one end of the country to the other. Most people argue for a national framework that allows for local variation. In that context, it would be helpful if the Minister could ask the Durham university research team to look at specific problems, and it would also help if they were to look in particular at the geographical areas under discussion in today's six Bills. Will he draw their attention to the fact that they can consider as part of their conclusions the need for variation within that national framework, so that, for example, Manchester does not need to have the same framework as Reading or Bournemouth, if that is appropriate?

Gareth Thomas: I assure my hon. Friend that all the points made in today's debate will be drawn to the researchers' attention. We are asking them to build the evidence base—to take a look across England and Wales at what powers are already available and whether they need to be changed. It will then be for the Government to reflect on the evidence that Durham university collects. I have no doubt that there will be continuing interest in the House both on what is drawn out as a result of that research work and on how we go forward if there is indeed a case for further action.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Although the Minister's announcement goes some way towards beginning to address the problem, the process sounds very long-winded. Meanwhile, certain local authorities have a real problem. They are involved in huge expenditure in bringing these Bills before the House today, and that has a public expenditure implication. This is still a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. What does the Minister intend should be done in the interim while his research is taking place?

Gareth Thomas: We hope that the research will be completed by the autumn and, as I said, we expect it to be published on the Department's website by the end of the year, so that interested parties, including Members of the House, can examine it. If there is sufficient evidence of a national problem, clearly the Government will have to reflect on what further action, if any, they should take. I recognise the need to draw the evidence together to see the scale of the problem. As is perhaps the situation now, it might be found that there are particular problems in particular places and it should still be the responsibility of individual authorities to make a judgment as to whether they need extra powers.
	In initiating this national review of the evidence base by Durham university, I am not seeking to cast aspersions on the case that the sponsors of the Bills are making today. It is for the House to reach its own judgment, in the traditional way, on the case that each of the Bills makes, and the Government remain neutral. As I have said, I recognise the concerns that have been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, who led in that regard, and we shall look at the national situation. I have made it clear that the evidence base remains unclear at the moment. We are seeking to clarify that by launching the research project in the way that I have described.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I must press the Minister a little more on this matter. Seven local authorities have gone through this arcane and tortuous private Bill procedure, six Bills are before us today and we are told that a further 50 are in the pipeline. That has huge public expenditure implications and it also demonstrates the size of the problem. To follow up the question asked by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell): how much more evidence do we need? Local authorities would not be spending taxpayers' money on a whim; they would not be doing that unless they thought that they had a real problem. So, the Government have a problem and I ask the Minister the question again: how much evidence does he expect Durham university to be able to produce to convince him that there is a national problem that needs addressing?

Gareth Thomas: With respect, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are some 410 local authorities in England and Wales, and nothing like close to a majority of them are seeking to introduce private Bills. On occasion, when local authorities have particular problems, it is for them to consider what actions they can take to deal with those problems. That is the principle of devolution and the principle behind the legislation that enables local authorities to take the specific actions required in their areas. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a case for examining whether there is a need for national legislation and for examining the national evidence base. The evidence is unclear, which is why we are seeking to clarify the situation.

Robert Wilson: Could the Minister let the House know whether he has received any representations from the police asking him to make any changes in law of the nature that are being proposed today?

Gareth Thomas: All sorts of people have made representations to us, and I have no doubt that representations of all sorts will have been made to the promoters of the Bills before us today. I also have no doubt that Durham university will want to draw on a range of sources in pulling together the evidence base for deciding whether to take further action.

John Hayes: rose—

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was not present at the start of the debate, so if he will forgive me, I shall not give way to him. I shall, however, give way to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger).

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the Minister draw the researchers' attention to the Macrory review of November 2006, many of whose recommendations the Government have accepted? It addressed statutory obligations and tightening up the way in which statute on the regulation of the likes of pedlars and on the penalties is used and enforced. Does he agree that that should be a starting point?

Gareth Thomas: As I have made clear, the whole of this debate will be drawn to the attention of the researchers, and the point that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken into account in the work that they do.

Tony Lloyd: I hope that I may help my hon. Friend and the House. When the Manchester City Council Bill was considered in the other place, representatives of the Greater Manchester police gave evidence in support. Their view is not untypical of police forces throughout the country, but it would be helpful if the Durham research team were specifically charged with researching the police's view and whether they want to be rid of this duty because they now regard it as a burden.

Gareth Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) will welcome that intervention. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the police helping the researchers with the evidence base, I should make it clear that we want those researchers to seek out every possible source of evidence to help to draw their analysis together.

John Battle: In 1999, Westminster council had a private Bill to deal with this problem, with the result that people moved 10 yd further down Westminster bridge, so that they were in Lambeth. It was 2004 before Lambeth brought forward a Bill to sort out the issue for the whole of London. The history of this goes back nine or 10 years. I hope that the researchers will look at the tensions between legitimate pedlars, who have certificates, and street traders, who think that they are being priced out. The knock-on effect needs to be addressed.

Gareth Thomas: From my research in preparation for this debate, I recognise the considerable history behind this issue. I take my right hon. Friend's point about the legislation that has been introduced previously. The points that have been made in this debate will be made available to the researchers. Ultimately it is a decision for the Government, in the first place, and the House, more generally, as to whether we need to take further action after we have seen the conclusions reached by the researchers.
	As I have made clear, the Government's view is that the evidence base remains unclear. We are seeking to bring clarity to the issue, and that is the specific task of the Durham researchers. The research will be made available to all Members and those outside who are interested through publication on the Department's website.

Christopher Chope: Will individuals and organisations be able to gain access to the researchers to provide them with evidence, and will the Minister publish the terms of reference for the research?

Gareth Thomas: Work will formally commence soon, and we will make the details available on the Department's website. I hesitate to commit the researchers to meeting every individual who wants to give evidence, but if the hon. Gentleman knows of individuals who want to provide evidence, he should tell them that they can write to the Department and we will ensure that the letters are passed to the researchers.
	I commend the Government's position to the House and I take this opportunity to encourage local authorities, hon. Members and other interested parties to engage with our researchers to help us to establish clearly the national evidence base for this situation.

Sarah Teather: I support the passage of the six Bills today, and if the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) presses his blocking motion to a vote I shall oppose it.
	I share the concerns that Members on both sides of the House have expressed that this is not the most sensible way of proceeding, given the sheer number of councils that have either brought forward private legislation or, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, might have plans to do so. As I have said several times during the course of the debate, a national framework, as suggested by the Conservative spokesman, would seem most sensible and would meet the Minister's concerns about giving local authorities the priority to decide what they wished to do in their area. It would give the councils the flexibility to adopt the legislation through a byelaw. That would add extra transparency, which is a concern when there are so many slightly different variants. If they were wildly different, it would make it easier for itinerant traders to understand the differences between areas, but because they are only slightly different, especially as there is an issue about whether councils adopt any legislation, it can be confusing. The mark of good legislation should always be that it is easy to understand whether or not one is complying with it, and that is very important.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady, with her eagle eye, will have spotted that the Minister said that if the research found there was a "national problem", the Government would consider whether they needed to act. As has been reported, the problem is by its nature likely to be local and possibly sporadic. The research will not find a national problem, but that does not mean that there should not be a national framework of the type that she describes.

Sarah Teather: That is why it is important for the Minister to publish the terms of reference for the research. I hope it will be flexible enough to allow the Minister to make a decision on passing national legislation that enables councils to adopt the power or not, regardless of whether the problem is national. From the representations that have been made today, it is clear that the problem is concentrated in particular areas. The Minister needs the flexibility in his decision making.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) explained the procedure for applying for a pedlars licence and how it differs from the process of applying for a street traders licence. Obviously, the licence differs in cost, but it also differs in terms of the relative stringency of the criteria that people are required to meet and of the body that enforces action against the person applying for the licence. That is one other point that has not been brought out in the debate so far.

Brian Iddon: Has the hon. Lady had any representations on the inconsistency of pedlars certificates? They vary from one police authority to another and when enforcement action is taken careful checks have to be made on whether the certificates are genuine or not.

Sarah Teather: I had not heard that. Another issue for a council trying to take enforcement action is that a pedlars licence might have been issued somewhere else. Although a council might have a good relationship with local police, it might not have such a close relationship with the police on the other side of the country, who might apply the criteria slightly differently. That makes it difficult for councils to take enforcement action against a pedlar who might be breaching the law.
	The Conservative spokesperson also spoke about the difficulty of enforcing action against pedlars who are breaking the law. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. The criteria are uncertain. That was certainly an issue that Brent council mentioned to me. Obviously, there is a different legislative framework in London, but the council told me of the difficulties that it had had because it was unclear how the courts would interpret the definition of a pedlar. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central spoke about meeting the letter of the law if a pedlar moves around every 20 minutes. My council explained the difficulties caused by a pedlar who might move to the other side of the road in the afternoon, and say that they were moving around. For councils, because of the expense of taking action and the uncertainty of the criteria that courts might use, it is very difficult to decide whether to take action against a pedlar who is effectively operating as a street trader.
	There are also wider issues. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) mentioned that the pedlar might operate entirely legally but be trading somewhere where the council might want to regulate that activity. The problem may not be that the law is being broken but simply that councils want to regulate what is happening in their areas. For instance, a pedlar might be causing an obstruction or inconveniencing people—or, as has been mentioned, it might be dangerous to trade in certain locations—but it is impossible to take enforcement action against someone with a pedlars licence.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister took solace in the fact that a Bill going through the House means that financial penalty notices could be issued to pedlars. However, pedlars are by their nature itinerant, so would it not be extremely difficult to enforce that procedure?

Sarah Teather: I agree. That Bill is about to enter Committee, so there is a lot of detail to be worked out. A pedlar may not be breaking the law, which is why these Bills have been brought forward, and why the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East wants to tighten the definition of "pedlar". The Government supported the London Local Authorities Act 2007 because it tightened that definition, with the result that people are exempt only if they trade from home to home. The aim of all the different Bills is not to outlaw pedlars but to make the definition much tighter, so that people who effectively operate as street traders are brought within existing legislation.
	We in London already have the benefit of that legislation, as I said, and my local council has told me that it has made a difference to how it can deal with problems in the borough.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I do not represent a London seat, but does the hon. Lady have any idea how many prosecutions there have been in Brent? How many people have been prevented from trading? What has happened to perishable goods? Other hon. Members have asked many similar questions this afternoon, so does she have any information on these matters?

Sarah Teather: I am afraid I have not done that sort of research, although I can give anecdotal information from my area. Perhaps the Minister might be willing to provide that information, and I am sure that his Department will be able to collect it.
	Wembley stadium is in Brent, and the major football tournaments that are played there regularly cause problems with people trading illegal goods. Brent council had a particular problem during Euro 96, when pedlars with licences from Newcastle were trading in fake goods and other illegal wares. When the council seized the goods, the people selling them were able to come back the next day because they had pedlars licences from Newcastle. As a result, it was impossible for the council to take effective action. The pedlars caused a nuisance to local people, and made the area very unsightly.

Christopher Chope: I am very interested in what the hon. lady is saying, but has she found out whether the people involved were prosecuted? If they were, they would never be able to get pedlars certificates in the future because they would not be considered to be of good character.

Sarah Teather: The people involved were itinerant. The fact that they came from somewhere else, constantly moved around and did not give clear identities made it almost impossible for Brent council to prosecute. The council said the law as it stood was completely unworkable, but it is confident that the new provisions will enable it to deal with people in a different way. For example, people who trade in one place—in this case, outside Wembley stadium—are classed as street traders, and that makes it much easier for the council to take the action that local people want it to take.
	The aim is not to criminalise all pedlars. The ones who operate effectively as street traders are being brought under the street trading legislation, and that is what most hon. Members present this afternoon are asking for. No one wants to criminalise people who sell from house to house: the aim is to bring those who do not conduct their business in that way under existing street trading law.
	I support the Bills before us, but I have a couple of detailed concerns about the way they are drafted. As with similar pieces of private legislation, they allow councils to hold seized goods for up to 56 days before proceedings must be instituted. That contrasts with the legislation that applies to London, where local authorities are allowed to hold seized goods for only 28 days. They can hold vehicles for only two days, unless a repeat offence is involved. If goods are held for eight weeks without proceedings being instituted, or even an undertaking that they will be, there is a danger that the procedure is the punishment. That is not good legislation, so we need to iron out those details. Perhaps the wording can be changed to ensure that authorities have a duty to release goods as soon as there is a decision not to proceed. There are many ways of dealing with the situation—it is just a matter of detail—but it is of concern to me.
	The Bill has no provisions in respect of an appeals procedure. Normally, fixed penalty notices allow a person to discharge their liability for conviction for an offence by paying money to an authority. There are examples in many pieces of legislation, such as the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which provided for penalty notices for graffiti and fly-posting. In all those cases, individuals can discharge their liability for conviction by payment, and if they want to appeal they can do so through the criminal courts. Parking offences are a different matter as they are, in effect, decriminalised and a civil offence: there is an appeals procedure through local councils, and enforcement action can be taken through civil courts if people do not pay their fine. There is a tribunal system and ultimately people can take their case to an independent parking adjudicator.
	There are different ways to proceed. I think the right way would be an appeals procedure through the criminal courts, because we are considering criminal rather than civil offences, yet there is no provision in the Bill for an appeals procedure. We need to consider that. We shall be debating similar things in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, where I have similar concerns about the lack of enforcement procedures. The measures are analogous in respect of the way we deal with fixed penalty notices.
	With those few objections, I express my support for the passage of the Bills.

Paul Truswell: I shall attempt to speak for a few minutes—if my voice lasts that long.
	Like many Members, I come to the debate as someone with a record of pursuing consumer protection issues, and because I want to defend the rights and welfare of legal traders. I came to the issue several years ago when I was contacted by a former constituent. I appreciate that anecdotal evidence is not always the best basis for taking a view on legislation, but in this case it prompted me to look in more detail at the legislation that applies to pedlars. If I may detain the House for a few minutes, Members will see that my constituent's words speak for themselves:
	"We are a small flower business trading from a shop...in Leeds. This shop has been trading flowers for some 30 years and provides a great service and focal point to the centre of Leeds.
	Over the past year an illegal street trader"—
	a pedlar—
	"and an associate have been selling flowers from an oversized makeshift cart"—
	in Leeds—
	"some 100 yards up the parade from our shop. This inevitably has had a grave impact on our sales as he is able to undercut our prices as he has no rent, Council Tax or insurance to pay. The street traders licence (peddler) only allows him...to stop at the point of sale but in fact he occupies the same spot as a permanent fixture.
	The Police and Leeds City Council are looking into this and have tried to help but whatever action they have, or are taking has so far had no impact as he remains trading in exactly the same place. It seems that he is blatantly able to flaunt the law"—
	I think my constituent means "flout the law"—
	"by bypassing any regulations at the expense of innocent paying shop traders."

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Truswell: When I have finished the quote, as I am coming to the crux of the matter. The letter continued:
	"The impact of his illegal actions has been so great that we are looking to close the business after Christmas with the loss of employment of 5 people."
	My constituent calculated that he lost about 40 per cent. of what his takings had been before the pedlar began that illegal action, much of that trade having taken place in the run-up to Christmas and around Valentine's day and mother's day.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that case law is absolutely clear? The situation that he describes is a person operating outside the legal scope of a pedlars certificate. A notice from Dorset police makes it clear:
	"If you do not move around between sales or if you set up a pitch or stall you will be liable to prosecution and seizure of your goods."
	That is what should have happened in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and penalties should have followed.

Paul Truswell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention; he leapt in a little bit too quickly, because I am coming to the reason why what he said is not a realistic representation of the position.

Hugh Bayley: I warmly welcome the Bill, which has been brought forward by Manchester city council, and the Bills from the other five councils. I just wanted to put it on the record that the problems that they experience are experienced in other areas. City of York council has asked me to attend the debate in order to express my support for the principles behind the Bills.

Paul Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and welcome his support.
	The case that I have just quoted prompted me to examine the issue in more detail. Although I cannot pretend in any way to be the peer of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the detail that I discovered makes me an ardent supporter of the legislation under discussion. The situation is like a game of cat and mouse, but I am not sure who is the cat and who is the mouse. One would normally expect the enforcement authorities to be depicted as the cat, but in some respects the traders whom they try to pin down are the cats, and the police, the courts and the council turn out to be the mice. That is what gives rise to the frustration that has generated not only the enacted private Bills that now benefit other parts of the country, but the Bills before us and the 50 that we understand are in the pipeline. Councils have reached the end of their tether on the issue. They have lobbied us and found that, currently, as has already been said, the only possible way of proceeding is to go through this very convoluted and—let us face it—expensive process.
	My back-of-an-envelope calculation, for what it is worth, shows that private Bills already cover a sizeable chunk of the country—one tenth, perhaps more. The six authorities that are pursuing their Bills will add to that mass, and if there are 50 in the pipeline, a significant proportion of the population—even though it might still be a minority—must be covered by the various authorities concerned.
	Some defenders of the existing legislation have made great play of the current licensing arrangements, but in reality those people who have tried to get to grips with it and seen the arrangements in operation in our areas know that they are ineffective and that the police do not have the resources to enforce them—nor should we expect them to. We have twice heard the definition in section 3 of the 1871 Act—I do not intend to repeat it—but my perception is that the issuing of a pedlars certificate does not follow any national guidance or procedure. It is based on a police officer issuing the certificate, which, as we know, may then be used anywhere in the country. There may be exceptions, but many certificates are issued on the basis of nominal checks. There is no procedure to follow up on certificates that have expired, and the National Association of British Market Authorities has considerable evidence of forged and out-of-date certificates being used to support pedlars' activities.
	The police and trading standards officers have also told NABMA that many unlawful street traders using pedlars certificates are involved with crime syndicates, and that very large sums of money are involved—either directly, from the sale of counterfeit goods, or as a front for more sinister activities. I appreciate that we do not want to attack legitimate and reasonable pedlars, but it is often difficult to address those wider issues in the public interest without there being some fallout or innocent victims. The question for the House is always one of balance.

Christopher Chope: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea of the number of occasions when pedlars have been charged and convicted for forging certificates, as defined by the legislation on pedlars? Has he considered that legislation, which makes it clear that there has to be a standard form and that there are set procedures for police authorities?

Paul Truswell: No, I cannot respond to that, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not expect me to be able to. We are getting into the minutiae; the problem is that in doing so we expend even more resources on an issue that could be addressed through the Bill—and certainly through a more national approach to this issue; there is cross-party support for that.
	I understand that there is no database to check the validity of the certificates. Obviously, as has been said, one issued in Blackpool could be requested by a police officer in Bournemouth. It is said that pedlars have a duty to exchange or give refunds on goods with which customers are dissatisfied, in much the same way as other traders do. However, we know from practical experience that pedlars frequently go out of business or simply disappear after making seasonal sales of poor-quality products—products without kitemarks, for example. We are all aware of instances when vulnerable members of the public have purchased a toy for their grandchild only to find that spikes or leaded paint had been used to make them. The traders who sold such toys are usually long gone when anyone seeks so-called after-sales service.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. The problem with his argument is that even if we get framework agreements or whatever we want to call them, even in respect of Canterbury, Bournemouth or wherever, the practices will continue, no matter how good the policing, trading standards or regulation. We have no evidence that things have changed in London, Northern Ireland or anywhere else in which this has been in force. Has the hon. Gentleman any confidence that what he is saying will be correct?

Paul Truswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that matters would be considerably improved. The provisions would reduce the parameters within which the traders we are talking about can operate. If we all accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument, we could go home for the whole of the year; we legislate all the time against offences and activities that continue despite the legislation. We have a law against murder, but unfortunately it still happens.

Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Truswell: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever areas such Bills cover—Newcastle, for example—there has been a dramatic effect on this type of trading? Bills such as this give local authorities the powers of seizure, which immediately stop the trading and deter the sort of pedlars we have been discussing today from ever peddling in that town or city again.

Paul Truswell: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot conceive that the authorities that have pursued such legislation in the past and those that are pursuing the legislation that we are discussing today—including Leeds city council, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) said, is controlled by Liberal Democrats and Tories—would embark on this time-consuming and expensive process if they did not feel it would make a substantial difference. In fact, if they put money into something found to be ineffectual, they would probably be open to investigation by the district auditor.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene again?

Paul Truswell: I was hoping to come to an end, but, yes, I certainly will.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is more knowledgeable than most of us on this issue, but the problem is that there is as yet no evidence, as far as I am aware, on the statistics. I am prepared to be proved wrong, but I looked quickly to see whether there was any. I have just asked the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) whether there was any such information from London, and she was not aware of any. That is one of the problems—we just do not know. Okay, we can say that it is early days and that Durham university may come up with more information, but it is not a convincing argument to say of such legislation, "Well, it must be making a difference; that's why we introduced it." Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the way to do such things is based on logic, argument and statistics?

Paul Truswell: Part of the problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is difficult to represent some of the issues in statistics unless we ask enforcement officers and the police to say how much time they have spent pursuing a particular issue. If we simply consider those who have been pursued under the existing legislation who might have been better dealt with under the new legislation, the statistics are probably quite marginal. We have to have confidence in the professionalism of police officers, trading standards officers and council officers, and in bodies such as NABMA, which try to come to grips with the issue, year in and year out. The evidence may sound anecdotal, but the problem is that the statistical case will never be as watertight as the hon. Gentleman seems to want it to be.

John Battle: I put it to my hon. Friend that Westminster city council had legislation passed in 1999, and it has not come back to the House to change it. Perhaps if hon. Members consulted that council, they would find that its experience demonstrated that the legislation gave it a satisfactory resolution that other councils need—but only in the short term, until there is a framework, so that legislation is not built up piecemeal.

Paul Truswell: I accept what my right hon. Friend says. The situation is the same for much of the legislation intended to protect consumers. A statistical approach is difficult, because some of the people we want to chase are not easily tracked down. If we get bound up in statistics, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and the House will never be satisfied. We have to work on the basis of the information that comes from those who have to get to grips with the issue daily.
	I understand that NABMA has reported evidence from around the country that shows that many towns have problems with unlawful street trading. A mini-survey conducted by the Local Government Association showed that of 100 local authorities, 90 reported problems with unlawful street traders. That might be a statistic, or it might be an opinion poll, but I think it is a significant addition to the argument.
	Finally, I should like to reiterate a point made by other Members, and made forcefully by Opposition Members: we should not have to debate the Bills before us today. Instead, we should have a piece of national legislation that gives local authorities a discretionary power to tackle the issues when they identify a problem in their locality, now or in future.

Julian Brazier: I will be brief, because a number of Members are waiting to speak and most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made very clearly, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), our Front-Bench spokesman.
	In a nutshell, the problem is that we are dealing with a very old and worthy piece of Victorian legislation that applies nationally and cuts across the ability of local councils to use the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The Act was designed to, among other things, enable a council to say how many street traders it wanted and what it expected of them, and it allowed a council to enforce those decisions through a system of annual licensing. In some cases, the interval is much shorter than a year, but it should not be longer than a year.
	I shall take Canterbury city council as my example. The council has decided how many street traders it wants and how many it is fair to have on the high street. I understand that at the moment it has given 13 annual licences and five temporary licences. The pitches are all on one side of the street to allow free movement of people on our very crowded high street, which is pedestrianised. In summer, it is sometimes so full that people try to use side streets if they want to make their way somewhere on foot. That whole system is effectively blown away by the Pedlars Act 1871. As the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), and for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), said, the 1871 Act effectively means that people who have no local locus at all, and who could have picked up a pedlars certificate from almost anywhere in the country—they are very easy to forge, so the person may not even have bothered to pay the £12.50—can put up a stand on wheels on the wrong side of the road, blocking an already extremely crowded street. Even if they commit no other offence at all, that in itself is a huge problem in a city that is a major regional shopping and tourist centre.
	There are a number of other problems, some of which are already familiar from the remarks of other hon. Members. I ask my hon. Friends who object to the measures to think for a moment about enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is a good friend and we see eye to eye on many subjects. He is a man of total integrity and is recognised as such across the House. I do not for a moment accuse him of having a vested interest, but the plain fact is that any attempt to enforce the measure involves lots of money for lawyers. It is extremely expensive not only in terms of money, but in manpower.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. Friend explain why it is expensive in money for lawyers and manpower to find out that somebody has a pedlars certificate that is forged and to prosecute that person, when there is in every police authority in the country a register of pedlars certificates that have been issued?

Julian Brazier: Let us take that as an example. Somebody has to approach the person and find out whether they have a pedlars certificate. They may say that it is not on them. They can be warned that they must produce it. One such person gave the address of a local women's refuge as the address from which he was operating.
	Let us suppose that the person has a legitimate pedlars licence, which has cost him only about 12 quid, and he produces that; none the less, he is static. How is that to be proved? Answer: an official must watch him for a period. Some of those people are organised with runners, often youngsters, who will warn if a council official approaches. A relatively limited number of council officials in Canterbury are involved in such matters. Let us suppose that the official is not noticed and that the trader has not been tipped off. The official notices that the trader remains in the same place for a long time—as we heard earlier, this is all an expensive official's time ticking by—and is then required to give the person a verbal warning. That has to be followed on the next occasion with a written warning. Only then can proceedings be adopted. However, the penalties are terribly small—much, much lower than what it costs to be a legitimate street trader. They are seen as a modest overhead, but to achieve that, an official will have been deployed on at least three separate occasions and sent to court, and a lawyer will have been employed.
	My constituency is a relatively poor one. Our unemployment rate, each time I look, is roughly the national average, but within Canterbury city, which is the poorest part of the Canterbury city council area, we have one ward—next to the cathedral—that has a national designation for deprivation. The council is a busy council, and council officers have a great deal to do. In our broken society, many of those tasks, sadly, relate to antisocial behaviour. The last thing I want as the Member of Parliament is to see council officials wasting their time going through all the mechanics involved in enforcing the provisions of a Victorian Act that was never designed with that in mind.
	I suspect that, as was hinted at earlier, we could fix most of the problem by putting in clause 5, I think—the clause which effectively states that the exemption from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 for pedlars should apply only if they conduct their business house to house. Many of the other clauses, which are common across all the Bills that we are discussing, relate to snapping up the enforcement.
	I end with three or four examples of the types of problem we have had. In one case, legitimate street traders complained that when the illegal traders set their stalls up, they often send somebody, usually a young girl, round to check the prices being charged by the legitimate traders selling the same kind of goods. Because they do not have the same overheads, they then underprice those traders and undercut the market. It might be said that that gives the consumer a better chance, but the problem is—we heard a harrowing example relating to a shopkeeper earlier—that operating without the licence that a real shop has to provide and without the annual check-up to which a legitimate street trader is subject makes it so easy to undercut in that way. Counterfeit goods are commonly sold and people often complain that when they bring poor goods back, the person has gone. I understand from the police that stolen goods are often marketed in this way and that some of these people have even got into drugs.
	Let me provide some examples of court cases to illustrate how the system simply does not work. One man was prosecuted three times. Let us remember what prosecuting someone entails: first, we have to find and monitor these people; then we have to warn them; then we must warn them in writing; and finally we get to prosecution. Then there was a second prosecution and then a third. This man received a £50 fine, £300 costs on the last offence and a conditional discharge. In other words, he got off at a much lower total cost than if he had paid for a proper street licence. No organisation funded by the taxpayer should be expected to go through that kind of nonsense. One man caught selling items, as I mentioned earlier, gave a woman's refuge as his address to the relevant official. Some people have been prosecuted up to four times. We have also experienced problems as a result of people being physically and verbally aggressive when they are checked up on. That can be difficult for officials to deal with.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I suggest to my hon. Friend and the House a succinct way of dealing with the problem? This is how it has been dealt of with in the Manchester City Council Bill and other Bills. As I pointed out in my speech, it is simply to amend schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to restrict the definition of pedlar to someone who goes only from house to house. That would deal with the problem of static stalls in any of the busy areas in my hon. Friend's city, and it would allow his council to designate a particular area as one where nobody may trade. The council could then prohibit anyone from trading in any such difficult area.

Julian Brazier: Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I understand that that feature is common to all the relevant Bills. Adding those few words into the 1982 Act would transform the situation.

Christopher Chope: Surely the problem that my hon. Friend is describing is one of enforcement in respect of rogue traders, people who purport to be pedlars but are not, people who do not have pedlar certificates and people who are operating outside existing pedlar law. My hon. Friend is trying to change the law, which might penalise the lawful and legitimate pedlar.

Julian Brazier: I am afraid that my hon. Friend leaves me totally at a loss. I have spent the last few minutes explaining why the present law is unenforceable. If he were not such a good friend, I would say that only a lawyer could fail to understand that argument. Having made that point, I rest my case.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who spoke passionately about why the Bill is appropriate in his area and offered insight by providing examples of the current situation that we face.
	I rise to support the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which my council firmly supports. The irony of today's debate is that it has been very illuminating because it has been quite an education to hear all sides putting forward their views on the clear predicament created by the differences between the Pedlars (Street Trading Regulations) Bill and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. What I feel is sad—

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tobias Ellwood: So early! I would be delighted to.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we had not had the Second Reading debates, which would not have taken place if the Bill had not been blocked, we would not have been illuminated in the way that we have been?

Tobias Ellwood: The second irony today is the fact that my hon. Friend has, if I may say so politely, perhaps been responsible for a couple of the delays in being able to debate the Bill, whereas there has been a full and forthright debate on it in the other place, including in Committee. My point, to him and the House, is that there should be more opportunity to debate it.
	The Minister's announcement that there is to be a study of the issue by Durham university is broadly welcome. Why not allow the Bill to move on to Committee, where we would be able to take evidence from more individuals and organisations, so that we could reach a better understanding of what is happening? The Bill would then, if I am correct, return on Report, which would give the hon. Gentleman—I mean my hon. Friend; I must remember that he is still my friend—the opportunity to say, "I've had enough—I believe we should let this one go." Let me plead with him now, as I probably will at the end, to allow the Bill to advance. It has to come back on Report, but there is clearly much to learn.
	I pay tribute to Lord Eden of Winton.

Greg Knight: I received an e-mail yesterday from Mark Smith, the head of tourism at Bournemouth borough council, who said:
	"The Leader of the Council...believes"
	that the Bournemouth Bill
	"reflects the wishes of our local people, local businesses and visitors."
	I wonder what evidence Bournemouth borough council has already collected to enable it to state that visitors to the town want the provisions.

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I am more than happy to provide the evidence that Bournemouth borough council has put together, which includes information and feedback from visitors. I have a couple of letters with me, which I will come to later, but on the general point about evidence, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any change in the law must be evidence-based. It cannot be introduced on a whim.
	However, I would hate to see the proposals run into the buffers today, when we have not had an opportunity to go through the evidence properly. Some hon. Members have spoken with passion, but perhaps without the necessary evidence. They need the opportunity to collate it and local authorities need the opportunity to present it. That could happen in Committee.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: One point that I have made to various Government Members, as well as to fellow Conservative Members, is that the evidence is not there. The evidence from Northern Ireland and London, where the provisions have been enacted, as my hon. Friend well knows, has still not come through. One reason I feel so strongly—our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) feels the same way—is that there is no evidence. My hon. Friend argues from a position of strength in saying, "We need it," but then argues from a position of weakness when he says, "Actually, we haven't got it." Let us stop the process and wait for the Minister and Durham university to do their jobs. Does my hon. Friend not accept that we can then go forward on a much stronger basis?

Tobias Ellwood: I have not even got out of the starting blocks, yet I have been intervened on three times. I am more than delighted to be intervened on, but let me try to put forward a case for looking at the provisions in further detail.
	I hope that my hon. Friend would agree that our objective in Parliament is to allow the democratic process to take its course. More than 70 authorities are thinking about similar proposals. Is he saying that they are all wrong? Why not give an opportunity to debate the issue in more detail? He is saying, "Throw it out!" whereas I am saying, "Give it a little more time, then let's make an assessment later on," which could include hearing from the good people of Bridgwater.
	I was in the middle of paying tribute to Lord Eden of Winton, who did such an amicable job of moving the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill through its various stages in the House of Lords, where it received an awful lot of scrutiny. I recommend that hon. Members read the  Hansard reports of those debates, which are so applicable to what we are talking about today.
	I was pleased to hear an indication from the Minister that we will consider the matter in more detail. I am sorry to hear that the provisions will not be in the Queen's Speech—we have already heard from the Prime Minister what will be in it, and the report that we are due to receive will not come until autumn.
	The summary of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill is: to make provisions relating to street trading and consumer protection in the area of Bournemouth; in particular to allow the council to regulate services offered on the street as well as the sale of goods; to alter the exemption enjoyed by the holders of the pedlars certificates from the street trading regime in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; to empower council officers or the police to seize goods and equipment when they believe a street trading offence has been committed; and to empower the courts to order the forfeiture of such articles.
	Why is that being called for? The existing laws, I am afraid, are simply not working. The situation in Canterbury that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Canterbury described also applies in Bournemouth. We have confusing and out-of-date laws. I hope that my hon. Friends who have spoken against the Bills will not support the status quo. There is a blurred line between a pedlar and a trader. Two Acts of Parliament that were written a century apart are colliding in a major way, and people are taking advantage of it.
	What is a pedlar? Trading by a person who is an authorised pedlar is exempt from the provisions of the 1982 Act. As other Members have said, however, to become a legitimate pedlar one simply has to gain a certificate issued by the police and keep on the move. The licence costs a mere £12.50, and can be applied for and gained anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It can also be used anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, except in those areas where Acts similar to the Bills under consideration have been put into practice. That is a double standard, and that is why I plead with my hon. Friends and other Members not to preserve the status quo, which is unacceptable.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend seems to be complaining about the £12.25 fee, but how great does he think it should be? If a shotgun licence is issued by one particular police authority, it can be used anywhere in the country. What is wrong with that principle applying to pedlars?

Tobias Ellwood: There are two responses to that. First, I did not complain about the £12.50 price itself; I just place it in the context of the much greater price of the street trading licence, which has led to the popularity of the pedlars licence. As for the example of the shotgun licence, yes, it can be purchased anywhere in the country, but if it is used illegally anywhere in the country, proper powers exist for that usage to be curtailed. I hope that he agrees on that point.

Julian Brazier: To emphasise my hon. Friend's point, anyone who broke the law relating to a shotgun licence would in all likelihood go to prison, even for a first offence. Having once been found guilty of armed trespass, if one uses a shotgun where one should not, one would go to prison on the next offence. With pedlars licences, there is no arrangement for anything more than a minimal system of fines.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that clarification.
	I do not wish to detain the House, but I want to repeat the definition of a pedlar in the 1871 Act, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown):
	"The term 'pedlar' means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods".
	The movement aspect of that is important. Also, it was written for a very different time. So long ago was the legislation drafted, that the Liberal party was in charge of Great Britain. That is how long ago it was—Victorian Britain. It was the time of Gladstone and Disraeli. It was Dickensian Britain.

Brian Iddon: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the 1982 Act was passed by a Conservative Government. They could have put the Victorian legislation right at that time.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I am afraid that I was not in the Conservative party then; otherwise, I would certainly have endeavoured to do what he suggests.
	I am painting a picture of a very different Britain. We have the ability to travel, and not just by horse. Communications now involve mobile phones, and pedlars can communicate between themselves on where they can and cannot go, where there is an easy target or not, and where trading can be done on a permissive basis. Also, the practice of moving door to door does not happen any more. In fact, if someone knocks on a door to sell goods in certain parts of the country, he will get short shrift. The legislation is out of date. That is why it is being abused.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1871 Act watered down a previous Act? I looked up the meaning of a petty chapman and it stems from a law handed down by Edward VI in 1553. A petty chapman was a retail dealer. The King said:
	"No Tinker, Peddler, or petit Chapman shall wander about from the Towne"—
	in other words, that person was restricted to a particular town—
	"but such as shall be licensed by two Justices of Peace."
	The earlier law was much stricter than even the 1871 law. It is about time we went back to the original 1553 law.

Tobias Ellwood: We are going back to Elizabethan times—or perhaps James I. However we look at the legislation—whatever angle we approach it from—it needs to be updated.
	The reality of today's legislation is that it is affecting Bournemouth town centre. I invite hon. Members to come to Bournemouth to see the impact—the evidence—for themselves. I invite them to see what is happening in the town centre and the Lower Gardens. The town has about 5 million visitors every year. We rely on tourism. It is our biggest industry and needs to be managed effectively. I am afraid that illegal traders are beginning to tarnish our image as a popular family seaside resort. The illegal traders are there from about Easter to Christmas every year. Considerable effort has been made to manage the situation to understand what the pedlars want in relation to the street traders. We have not been able to reach a compromise because people are leaning on this archaic legislation, which so needs to be updated.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I give way to my hon. Friend from the neighbouring constituency of Christchurch.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend will know that Christchurch is an ancient market town and like Bournemouth. Surely there is no need for Bournemouth to license any street traders. If it did not license street traders, the problems that he describes in the square and elsewhere would be much reduced.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not follow that argument at all. We have to license street traders because of other laws. There are issues to do with insurance liability and so forth. If anyone has a stand that is permanent and not moving, as according to the 1871 Act, he needs to operate accordingly. I suggest my hon. Friend read the 1982 Act, which requires street traders to pay for a licence. That licence costs in the region of between £25 and £30 a day, not £12.50 a year.

Greg Knight: In the argument that my hon. Friend is developing, is he in effect saying that the problem would be solved if Bournemouth council reduced the cost of the street trading licence so that it equated with the cost of a pedlars licence?

Tobias Ellwood: I am not advocating that.

Greg Knight: That is the logic.

Tobias Ellwood: We have a series of problems. The Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which I shall discuss in a moment, includes changes to local legislation that will allow us to tackle the problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has discussed his constituency. I am sure that he knows Purbeck district council, which has not experienced the problem of pedlars on the same scale as in Bournemouth. Purbeck district council is not affected by the problem, so it does not require such legislation.
	I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), back in his place. He does not need to get feedback from 410 local authorities across the country, but it would be helpful. The issue is pertinent in seaside towns and market towns where there are tourists and visitors, who allow pedlars and, indeed, street traders to make a profit. We need a reconciliation between the two types of trader who are taking advantage of two distinctive and disparate Acts of Parliament.
	As shadow Minister with responsibility for tourism, I have a national interest in the matter—I see that the Culture, Media and Sport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is in his place. We must ensure that British tourism thrives. We are currently suffering from a tourism deficit—more people choose to holiday abroad than in the UK—and we need to make Britain attractive. If there is any reason why people are deterred from going to our seaside towns, we must investigate the situation. The matter needs more scrutiny, which could take place in Committee.
	Illegal street trading is flourishing. We have heard examples involving sunglasses and kites, and the quality of such goods is certainly dubious. We have also heard from hon. Members about the fact that there is no comeback. If people buy goods from a pedlar, they cannot return one week later and try to get their money back if something has gone wrong. However, people can get their money back from a street trader, so the circumstances are different. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Pedlars Act 1871 was drafted, pedlars are illegally selling mimicked, oriental goods, which are entering this country in increasing numbers. As we have heard, there is very little recourse to prevent that from happening. Health and safety has been mentioned, so I will not go into further detail.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has suggested using the existing legislation to get the police to tell pedlars to move on or to get the council to go through the process of charging them, but it is not that simple. It now costs the council about £1,000 to go through the rigmarole of warnings and so forth, which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been through. By that time, the individual has scarpered, regardless of whether they were using an illegal licence or a legitimate licence.
	We have a lot of eastern Europeans in Bournemouth. They pick up licences because a master who is operating the store has told them to do so. Such masters send out individuals every week knowing that the licence will probably be taken away eventually, in which case they send another individual out instead. That is not how our markets should operate; that is not how our town centres will flourish; and that is not the way to look after our seaside resorts. Prosecution involves charging individuals £100, but the process costs the council £1,000. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that that wastes an awful lot of taxpayers' money.
	Pedlars have an impact on legitimate businesses, whether street traders or shopkeepers. They should not be seen as street traders, and they are required to move from place to place. Clause 5 of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill amends the appropriate schedule to the 1982 Act to make it clear that a pedlar will not be able to trade in a prohibited street unless they are trading from place to place, and that they cannot trade in a consented street until they first obtain consent from the local council. That would not prevent anyone from peddling, which is one argument that has been advanced. I am not against pedlars per se, but the practice should be conducted in an authorised manner, which is what I am looking for. Bournemouth, along with other places around the country, is a first-class destination resort, but it is currently served by third-class legislation.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) wanted some evidence. Let me share with him some correspondence that I received, which oddly enough is not directed at me, but at one Christopher Chope—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I will read it out anyway. The first is from the British Resorts and Destinations Association, and says:
	"I am writing on behalf of the Local Authority members of the British Resorts and Destinations Association...Regrettably, until such time as Central Government act to repeal or significantly amend the existing pedlars' legislation, towns like Bournemouth will have no choice but to seek local solutions."
	That is from BRADA, as it is called. Castlepoint is a big, private shopping centre in Bournemouth, of which hon. Members may be aware. Its letter states:
	"On a recent customer survey at the centre, one of the main criticisms of Bournemouth town centre was the number of unsolicited activities that take place in the town compared to Castlepoint where no such activity is permitted. I do not wish Bournemouth to continue to haemorrhage customers since a vibrant Bournemouth town centre is good for us at Castlepoint, too...The unlicensed pedlars tarnish that brand."
	That is from Peter Matthews, a general manager at Castlepoint, who refers to some of the surveys that have been conducted in Bournemouth.
	The final letter is from the Bournemouth War Memorial Homes charity. It states:
	"Last summer the Residents who are all disabled ex-service personnel were granted a licence to fund-raise in Bournemouth Square.
	Ten residents volunteered to collect on the day. The net result was a total of £67"—
	we are talking about a day's collection—
	"entirely due to the fact that their modest stand could not be seen by the general public as there were so many unregulated traders everywhere, some quite nasty and unsympathetic to those who have served our country."
	Their licence cost them £30, for that day, for the privilege of collecting money in the town centre. They made £67, and there were other costs, such as public liability insurance and so forth. That is the reality of the legislation, which is why I urge hon. Friends and other hon. Members to say that we should look at it further. We should move to the next stage and debate it in Committee. Pedlars should not be street traders, which is why I believe that the legislation is archaic and should be upgraded.
	Can it be that 70 councils throughout the UK are wrong? We have a bizarre situation, which I referred to in an intervention, where up to 10 million people—residents and in businesses—are already living in areas where this legislation is in operation, such as Northern Ireland, London, Leicester, Liverpool and Medway. Other councils, including Bournemouth, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Reading and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury are queuing up to say that we should change the legislation and bring it up to date, to allow a better understanding of the predicament involving the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the Pedlars Act 1871.

Robert Walter: I came here today because I am sympathetic to Bournemouth's problems, but I am a little concerned about the 70 or so local authorities that are in the queue to which my hon. Friend refers. Does he feel that if Bournemouth's legislation is successful, those traders will move north into my constituency, right on the edge of Bournemouth? We have Wimborne market, a big open-air market that operates three days a week. Those traders might create problems for East Dorset district council, which might not have the resources that Bournemouth borough council has to introduce similar legislation.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point that has been repeated again and again. In Newcastle, such legislation was brought in successfully, and a lot of the pedlars moved across to Gateshead. The first question is: why are those pedlars who wanted to operate in Newcastle not applying to be legitimate? Why are they not choosing to do things above board? I do not wish to disparage my hon. Friend's constituency but, as in the case of Bournemouth, there has to be a threshold of a thoroughfare of people—either residents or tourists. I am sure that there are many visitors to his area. But there are some areas—I mentioned Purbeck as an example—where such legislation would not be required. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made it clear: any new legislation should empower rather than enforce councils to operate revised pedlar provisions.
	Time is running short, so I shall end by simply saying that the Government have taken a small step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister, and other Members, will listen to those whose voices we are hearing throughout the United Kingdom. There is, I believe, a consensus in the House and the nation in favour of change. I certainly believe that we need to give councils the power—but not necessarily the duty—to make decisions locally.
	I welcome the Government's announcement, because I do not support the status quo. This is unfinished business, and if it is not finished today, I hope that it will be in 24 months' time if not earlier, after a general election.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I rise to speak with some sadness, because although I agree with my hon. Friends about 90 per cent. of what we are discussing, I cannot agree with what they have said today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) said that it would be democratic to pass the motion, I believe that it is also democratic to oppose it. I feel that these Bills must be stopped, for a simple reason. As was made clear a moment ago, if a Bill affecting a particular area is enacted, people will move and the problem will be passed on. I am not at all convinced that the county, district and unitary councils that have adopted these measures so far have seen the major change that they expected to see.
	Let me issue a challenge. All those other towns, including London and towns in Northern Ireland, have highly competent CCTV systems, which they ought to use to collect evidence in order to demonstrate whether the measures are making a difference. According to evidence presented in another place, Bournemouth said that although its system was good, it did not know whether that could be done. Of course Bournemouth's system may need to be updated, but I can assure the House that, without a shadow of doubt, London and Northern Ireland—and, I think, Newcastle, of which I have a little experience—have extremely good systems, which would certainly be able to provide clear evidence.
	The problem is that we are not all discussing the same Bill. We are discussing different Bills and different problems, and each Bill is trying to achieve a slightly different aim. That is fine as far as it goes, but in the long run it cannot be right. What we need—dare I say, as a Tory—is standardisation: each licence, whether it costs £600-odd in Manchester or the £12.25 paid by a pedlar, must be standardised.
	I am pleased that the Government are to undertake sensible research, which I think should be done as quickly but also, as the Minister said, as diligently as possible. What worries me slightly is that I think the Minister said—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that he wants Durham university to deliver the results of that research by August.

Gareth Thomas: I said "autumn". Let me also take this opportunity to assure the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that we will publish the terms of reference on the Department's website.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Minister for clarifying the position, and apologise for mishearing the word "autumn".
	One group that has kept very quiet about this, perhaps for a reason of which I am not aware, is the Local Government Association, which covers every area of local government in the country. I have yet to hear anything from the LGA.

Tobias Ellwood: May I return my hon. Friend to what he said about CCTV? It is a great idea, but Bridgwater must be an extremely rich council, because CCTV is expensive. If my hon. Friend gave Bournemouth some money, we would be delighted to install it. More to the point, the Local Government Association supports these Bills.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The subject was raised in evidence in the other place. The witness was called Mr. Smith. I cannot tell the House who he is, but no doubt he is a council official: of course, they are all called Smith. He was asked whether there was sufficient CCTV in the area to be able to gather evidence, to which he replied that at present there was not, but that that could and would be put in place. That is the difference—and the situation in Bournemouth may have moved on from that.

Brian Iddon: A few weeks ago, the LGA carried out an e-mail survey on my behalf so that I could pressurise the Minister. More than 70 local authorities had replied when I talked to the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) has mentioned the figure of 90. Therefore, it is simply not true to say that the LGA has not consulted on this; it has done, although by e-mail, admittedly. I also ask the hon. Gentleman to consult the trading standards officers in Newcastle and hear their version of how much the town centre has improved since the Newcastle Bill was enacted.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His experience is, of course, greater than mine. I suspect that the LGA has decided that it now needs to do something about this, although I am a little concerned that it has consulted by e-mail. I am unsure whether that went to all Members of the House, as I do not remember seeing it, but I accept that it went to 70 local councils—there are, however, 410 local councils. I also do not know whether that figure included the original councils that have signed up already; if it does, that makes a difference, especially taking London into account.

Brian Iddon: Not all local authorities are affected in the same way as are York, Bournemouth, Manchester and Liverpool. A substantial number of authorities are affected, but not all 410 are.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: All authorities will be affected if we allow the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills to go through.

Tobias Ellwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May I finish my point first? They will all be affected because people will be moved on—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made this point. This will affect us all. We have a large fair in Bridgwater and we have had a problem, but through sensible and constructive actions by the police, trading officers and the council, we have not had a problem with pedlars. We have been proactive and the action we have taken has worked extremely well.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend made a statement at the outset, which I am still waiting for him to justify as it represents a complete departure from anything said earlier in the debate. He said he wanted pedlars and street traders to be treated in exactly the same way. Does he really mean that, because the concern has been repeatedly expressed in the debate that some pedlars behave as though they are street traders—which is something quite different—but do so in a way that makes it impossible to make the law enforceable?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I will try to clarify the position. I was trying to say—probably unsuccessfully—that there is a major difference. In Manchester, street traders are charged £623 whereas the figure for a pedlar is £12.25. There is no similarity; they operate in different ways. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should view with some scepticism any opinions expressed by the LGA, and when we gather evidence we need evidence other than the fact that councils want these powers? Local authorities might want these powers because the fact that pedlars can operate at a cheaper rate shows that their high fees for street trading are unjustifiable.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I was going to come on to that point, but may I first remonstrate with the LGA? I am concerned that it has taken so long to get on to this issue, which has been around for a long time. Successive Governments have tinkered with it. In respect of the last reviews of the statutory obligations, the Government accepted all nine recommendations, but I am not aware of the LGA having put forward any form of consultative document on that. It has been very slow.
	On the fees, of course local councils want to raise more money. If Canterbury, Bournemouth and elsewhere, including Manchester, had their wits about them, they would increase those fees—to, say, £600—and door-to-door salesmen, or pedlars, or whatever we want to call them, would be priced out of business. That would be unfortunate, because people should not be precluded from going from door to door; that should be encouraged. The point has been made—we all know this, as we have recently had a by-election in Crewe and Nantwich—that we are not always welcomed on doorsteps. Surely one has the right to be able to go from door to door; that activity should not be covered by the Bill and we should not allow its prohibition in the longer term.
	I had promised to speak for only 10 minutes, but I wish to make a final point. Enforcement is possible as things stand, but it requires people who are willing to do it. We have heard a lot of arguments today that it costs such and such a figure, but there are ways of enforcing this and they should be used. We do not have to introduce new Bills and new statutory obligations. Let us leave things to the review that the Government are going to undertake, and let us see what the rights and wrongs are. As I have said before to hon. Members in this debate, what evidence do we have that our system is not working? The evidence is pitifully little. I suggest that councillors need to take a stronger line, using trading standards, the police and their own council resources—CCTV and so on—to administer this situation, because it is not beyond the wit of man. If we can solve parking problems, we can solve a lot of things in city centres. Let us be honest, the matter is a bit of a hot potato, with various crimes that I do not need to discuss, but I am sure that we could deal with this.
	I continue to oppose this Bill, because I strongly believe that it is not the way to make progress. I believe that we need a framework document, put together by the Government and enacted either by this Government or the next Government—I know who that will be; it will be our Government. I would like to think that we could have this debate again after the autumn, when we could look at what the Government are proposing in much more detail. At that point, we should stop what is going on and examine it in the cold light of day, before we make another mistake.

Christopher Chope: The first thing that is apparent is that my blocking motion has ensured that none of these six Bills received a Second Reading on the nod. The quality of today's debate has shown that I was right to insist that the Bills should be properly debated on Second Reading. The Minister's statement and the major policy announcement made by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), would not have been possible but for this debate.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend not waste any time in speaking to the Nottingham City Council Bill? We have not heard from any Nottingham Member, so I can only conclude that that Bill is not required.

Christopher Chope: I had not yet got on to Nottingham. I was going to begin by discussing Bournemouth, because that is closer to home and my constituency. Those hon. Members who were not able to listen to BBC Radio Solent this morning might like to know that on it, Mark Smith, Bournemouth borough council's head of tourism, asserted that he thought one of the problems in Bournemouth town centre was that pedlars were harassing people. Many people subsequently phoned in, e-mailed or sent text messages to BBC Radio Solent saying that they disagreed fundamentally with what he had said. The context of that discussion was very much that the case had not been proved for introducing such draconian changes to the law on a unilateral basis, which is what Bournemouth borough council intends to do.
	May I briefly share with the House some correspondence that I have had with the store manager of Marks & Spencer in Bournemouth? He wrote to me expressing concern about my attitude to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. I wrote back saying:
	"You say that the Pedlars Act is a piece of legislation from Victorian times. That is obviously correct but am I not also correct in recalling that it was under pedlars legislation that Marcus Sieff was able to build up the large business with which you are now associated?"
	He has not responded to that question. I also asked him:
	"Why should those who wish to sell balloons"
	—the people who are at the beginning of an entrepreneurial career—
	"to tourists in Bournemouth not be allowed to do so?"
	I have yet to receive a response to that either.

Tobias Ellwood: Now that my hon. Friend has alienated Marks & Spencer, I am not sure where he will now buy his underwear—perhaps Beales in Bournemouth. He mentioned balloons, but they can still be sold in Bournemouth or Christchurch. It is simply that, under the new legislation, they will be sold legally. That is the point of the change.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend misunderstands the law. At the moment, someone with a lawful pedlars certificate can sell balloons wherever he wishes. If my hon. Friend has his way and the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill becomes law, it will no longer be possible for someone with a certificate to sell balloons on the street in Bournemouth unless he also has a street trading licence for which he may have to pay a substantial amount of money.
	The issue of pedlars is romantic and evokes entrepreneurs of a previous age. W. B. Rands, the originator of  The Boy's Own Paper, had a little ditty about them:
	"I wish I lived in a caravan,
	With a horse to drive, like the pedlar man!
	Where he comes from nobody knows,
	Or where he goes to, but on he goes!"
	That is most people's view of the pedlar—someone who travels from town to town selling his wares and passing the time of day with his customers. The essence of the law is that he seeks out his customers rather than expecting them to come to him, in the same way as we go out canvassing during elections. We go to meet our constituents rather than expecting them to come to us at our surgeries, which is the form the rest of the time.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because while he has intervened, he has not used an excessive amount of time today. He made a point about the quality of the debate today, but does he agree that it would be in the interests of the pedlars, whose cause he espouses, if we could move from this Second Reading debate to more detailed consideration in Committee?

Christopher Chope: I am sure that in due course the Bills will get a Second Reading. It would be better, in terms of the costs for the councils that are promoting the Bills, if the Committee stages did not start until after we have had the evidence from the Durham university study. That would prevent abortive expenditure by the local authorities and that evidence would also inform the Committee stage. Our procedures mean that persistence pays off and, in due course, the Bills will get a Second Reading, if enough people vote for them. But whether that will be today, I can only speculate.
	As a local resident close to the Bournemouth conurbation, I have made it my business to try to be the healer in this issue. I went in January to an early-morning meeting at Bournemouth town hall to discuss possible compromises in relation to the objection that I was making to the Bill. I have to express my disappointment that I have not had a full response from the council to some of the concerns that I expressed. I asked one of the key councillors, in writing, whether he could let me know what estimate he had of the number of lawful pedlars operating in Bournemouth, what consultations had been carried out with those people about the contents of the Bill—
	 It being  t hree hours after the  commencement of  proceedings on the private business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means , Madam Deputy Speaker  interrupted the business pursuant to Order [4 June].
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Thursday 19 June.

Bournemouth borough Council Bill  [Lords]  (By Order)
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second Time on Thursday 19 June.

PETITION

Planning and Development (Salisbury)

Robert Key: The petition from the citizens of Salisbury and south Wiltshire
	Declares that the Government proposals to impose the building of an additional 12,400 houses on our community will change forever the character of this unique part of rural England's landscape and heritage.
	The petition also states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to annul these proposals and bearing in mind the imminent abolition of Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council and their replacement by a new Unitary Wiltshire Council as Planning Authority to delay any decision on future housing options for at least one year and to leave development policy in the hands of their locally-elected planning authority, pursuing organic and sustainable growth in our local economy and in the provision of new homes.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of the citizens of South Wiltshire,
	 Declares that the Government proposals to impose the building of an additional 12,400 houses on our community will change forever the character of this unique part of rural England' s landscape and heritage; has been proposed with inadequate time for proper consultation; is not supported by proposals for new physical or social infrastructure and will result in the loss of prime agricultural land.
	 Further declares that the underlying planning assumptions of economic and population growth in central southern England are speculative and flawed and ignore the special nature of the open landscape and natural environment which enhances biodiversity in a precious, pollution-free, low-carbon area which is as important to the whole of England as the speculative construction of new houses.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to annul these proposals and bearing in mind the imminent abolition of Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council and their replacement by a new Unitary Wiltshire Council as Planning Authority to delay any decision on future housing options for at least one year and to leave development policy in the hands of their locally-elected planning authority, pursuing organic and sustainable growth in our local economy and in the provision of new homes.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000212]

DEPRIVATION (EDMONTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Andrew Love: I was hoping that the previous debate might end a little early and give me more time, so I shall need to speed along to try to get to all the points I want to raise.
	This debate is about the level of deprivation in Edmonton, and I seek to show that deprivation and worklessness are increasing rapidly in the London borough of Enfield, in which my constituency is situated. Of course, the borough does not adequately reflect the intensity of the real difficulty faced in my constituency. There is enormous disparity in the London borough of Enfield and my area is the one that has the most intense deprivation. I also seek to show that future employment opportunities in north London are in steep decline, causing some concern locally. Public funding to address the issues of deprivation and worklessness is being either withdrawn or cut. As a result of that, I want to ask the Minister what he can do to support my constituents.
	Let me start with some limited good news. The local government settlement for Enfield meant that we received the third highest formula grant in London. We should have received 9.5 per cent. but received only 4.5 per cent. It was reduced because we had to ensure that the 29 London boroughs that had lost out in the process received the minimum floor of the formula grant. When I requested an explanation of the settlement from my local authority, it said:
	"Enfield's formula grant increased by so much largely due to increases in certain indicators that feed through to formula totals including unemployment-related benefit claimants...and Incapacity Benefit...claimants".
	Let me give some examples. The number of claimants of income support has shot up in my constituency and the London borough of Enfield. From 2001 to 2006, Enfield had the highest increase in the country—13.7 per cent.—at a time when the national figures were decreasing by 6.5 per cent. Enfield is the 17th highest area in terms of incapacity benefit claimants and second highest in the country in terms of lone parents. Worklessness has increased, rising by more than 17 per cent. in 2006. There is also what we call the London effect, which was defined in a 2006 Treasury paper entitled "London Employment". The paper stated that
	"some national policy responses to unemployment and economic inactivity can be less effective in London. Policies intended to raise the financial gain to work can be less effective in London because housing costs and costs of working can be higher".
	According to a recent study, my local residents have the 25th smallest incomes in the country, and the fourth smallest pay packets in London. Incomes locally are very low, but the conditions in my local authority of Enfield do not tell the whole story. There are huge disparities across the borough, as I shall show. The gross median wage is £385 in Edmonton, £446 in the more affluent areas, and £495 in the most affluent part. Similarly, unemployment in January totalled 5.8 per cent. in Edmonton, 3.9 per cent. in the more affluent areas and as low as 2.6 per cent. in the most affluent part of the borough. Enfield is not alone in having such great disparities, and that is especially true in London, but the people who work out the levels of need must recognise that there are real differences between London boroughs when it comes to deprivation and worklessness.
	I turn now to employment opportunities in the future. In 2006, a seminal study entitled "Employment Projections in Outer London" was carried out by the London School of Economics. It concluded that only 10 per cent. of the growth in employment in London to 2016 would be in outer London, and that there would be nil growth in employment in both Enfield and in parts of south London.
	The reasons are complex, but there are structural weaknesses in the Enfield economy. We are more dependent on jobs in industry and public services, and those sectors are the least likely to grow in the years to 2016. We are also sandwiched between the dynamic inner part of London, where there will be significant job growth, and the competitive home countries that will also do well in the given period.
	The London borough of Enfield is also likely to have significant population growth over the next 15 years. When those two facts are put together, the implication is that there will be more commuters who live locally but work in either central London or the home counties, and that will place capacity constraints on public transport. The major growth in central London will be in jobs in finance and business services, but they do not suit everyone. They especially do not suit people with lower skill levels, of whom there are many in my constituency.
	The LSE report suggested that greater focus should be placed on the London development plan, which has four development corridors. The one in north London runs through Cambridge and Peterborough, and the study very strongly recommended that there needed to be more funding for that development activity.
	I turn next to the resources that we should be able to deploy to address some of the local weaknesses that I have outlined. European structural funding includes the social fund and the regional development fund. Until 2006 Enfield had objective 2 status, but the shift of resources to the east of Europe meant that there had to be a significant reduction in structural funding. There was an option to replace that with national funding, but it was not taken up.
	The Government's national strategic reference framework removed objective 2 status for north London, and as a result we lost a series of large project funds. We also lost the funding available through the grants to objective 2 areas. Subsequently, we have discovered that only €182 million will be available for European regional development funding in the whole of London over the next six years, and that is not enough to cope with the difficulties that we face.
	There used to be a very comprehensive programme of other London development area funding, but it was replaced recently by what is called "spatial targeting". The implications are not clear yet, but we know already that there will be no "as of right" awards for the regeneration opportunities in my constituency. As a result, there will not be enough funding for my area.
	When we consider London Development Agency support for the Olympics, we see that resources meant for other parts of London, including my area, have been sucked into providing the site assembly costs and other costs related to development for the Olympics. It is clearly an incredibly important project for the country, but it should not be at the expense of local funding. We should have been receiving something in the region of £30 million for the upper Lee valley in my area, yet so far we have received only £6 million, which is well short of what was expected.
	It seems strange that when London has the highest rate of child poverty in the country and the lowest employment rate, we shall across London receive so little assistance from the working neighbourhoods fund. Indeed, Enfield, which was a neighbourhood renewal funding area, will now become a transitional authority and the resources that would have been available will be phased out over the next few years, yet six local authorities that will receive working neighbourhood funding have a lower claimant rate than the London borough of Enfield. Twelve local authorities that will receive working neighbourhood funding have a higher employment rate, so it seems somewhat perverse, given the intense difficulties in my area, that such funding will not be available to it.
	We are told that the intention is that the money should address entrenched pockets of worklessness where we have not been successful in the past. However, when we consider the cost of making unemployed local residents job-ready, we discover that it can be extremely high. A recent London Development Agency study on tackling worklessness suggested that the cost of preparing people for employment and sustaining them in it could range from anything between £5,000 and £30,000 over a significant period. That seems very expensive to achieve the aims of the working neighbourhoods fund.
	Work in the area is being done at local authority level, yet in respect of other economic development spending, such as the economic growth initiative and the multiple area agreements, it has been suggested that to achieve the greatest benefit we need to work at a level higher than that of the local authority. Local authorities need to come together, but there seems to be a contradiction between that and the operation of working neighbourhood funding. Surely we need to try to achieve the maximum impact both on worklessness and in trying to improve prosperity.
	Finally, I deal with local area agreements, which were set up to complement neighbourhood renewal funding and to narrow the gap between the most deprived parts of a local area and the rest. Among the objectives agreed by central Government, local government and local strategic partnerships were to set targets that would stretch performance locally. It was agreed that we would try to join up public services and, most important in this context, to allow
	"greater flexibility for local solutions to local circumstances".
	However, in the London context problems are not always local. The enormous churn and movement across London boroughs can mean that many of the problems in my area and in Enfield are related to difficulties in surrounding boroughs, or even boroughs in other parts of London. Often, with regard to worklessness, which is the focus of much of the activity, the challenge cannot be dealt with only at local level: we need more than just local resources if we are to deal with the problems. I could go into detail about some of the intense worklessness in my area.
	A recent report produced by Enfield strategic partnership, entitled "Building Futures—Changing Lives", indicated that according to the Government's research the London borough of Enfield had moved from 104th to 70th in the most deprived list over the past four years. In the past three years, there have been 6 per cent. more children in families living on benefits. In one of the wards in my constituency, 29 per cent. of people are workless. In one of the super-output areas—a much smaller, localised area—the figure is up to 36 per cent. How will we deal with that intensity of difficulty?
	Deprivation and worklessness are increasing rapidly, and that may get even worse now that the economic cycle is in a downturn. Neighbourhood renewal funding locally is coming to an end. No European Union structural funds, working neighbourhood funds or local economic growth initiative funds are available. We do not have the apparatus to deal with the problems that face us.
	I have tried to leave the Minister plenty of time to respond to this debate. Will he indicate some of the matters in respect of which I may knock on his door and those of other Departments to try to address the real difficulties that we are facing, and will face to an even greater extent in future?

Parmjit Dhanda: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate and on the passionate and tenacious way in which he put across his points about his constituency. He is one of my best honourable Friends in this House, and his passion for his constituency is unrivalled in this place. During his speech, he described some of the disparities in his borough of Enfield. I am familiar with such disparities, although of a different scale. The existence of severe pockets of deprivation in areas of some affluence is a familiar problem.
	My hon. Friend said that job opportunities had been in decline in recent years; more positively, he talked about Enfield having the third highest grant in London. He spoke in depth about some of the challenges relating to incapacity benefit. Many of his constituents are lone parents, many are without work and many are low paid. My hon. Friend also mentioned the "sandwich effect" of growth in the economy of parts of central London and the challenge of the home counties that lie just north of his constituency. He also expressed concern that the economic advantage of the Olympic games may not result in the sort of long-term legacy that he hopes his constituency will gain.
	My hon. Friend also provided a shocking statistic: there is 29 per cent. worklessness in one of his wards. I shall not pretend that in the coming minutes I can answer all the questions or resolve all the problems, but I will certainly have a go at setting out a framework for how the Government, in partnership with a passionate Member of Parliament, local government and other agencies, can, I hope, make a difference.
	My hon. Friend has rightly campaigned vigorously on the issues that he has raised, particularly as the new indices of deprivation, published in December 2007, showed that the borough of Enfield had become more deprived since the publication of the previous index of deprivation in 2004. He has set out the pressures and inequalities that affect people living in areas of real deprivation, such as Edmonton. That matter has always been and remains a top priority for our Government.
	As the index of deprivation clearly shows, the problem is not confined to London alone. Every region in the country, even the most affluent, includes pockets of deprivation and worklessness, which is a major—if not the major—contributor to deprivation. We have invested and will invest in various initiatives to tackle the multiple issues contributing to what we define as deprivation. For example, Enfield's allocation from the neighbourhood renewal fund, worth £3 billion nationally, amounted to more than £11 million. In addition to the Department for Work and Pensions mainstream funded activity in the borough, other funds have been put in to support initiatives aimed at reducing worklessness.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the neighbourhood renewal fund scheme has ended, but research showed that it had a positive impact on economic regeneration. Influenced by that evidence, last November the Government launched the working neighbourhoods fund—the first ever fund for local councils dedicated to tackling worklessness and low levels of skills and enterprise locally. I will not pretend that we will see instant returns, and he will know better than anyone in his community that some challenges are generational, and many others have to do with aspiration as much as anything else. Enfield is eligible for two years of WNF transition funds in 2008-09 and 2009-10. That equates to £892,000, which is to be targeted at tackling worklessness and skills-related issues.
	On economic and business development, there is local activity that will bring jobs to the area. For example, my hon. Friend will be aware that Asda is about to create 300 jobs at Edmonton Green in his constituency. I understand that the local strategic partnership is commissioning a borough-wide strategy for employment and skills, and that to support people into work and overcome barriers to employment, it works with Haringey and Waltham Forest on the North London skills pledge. The borough also works with the "Reed in partnership" programme to help incapacity benefit claimants to get into work. That is another long-term challenge for his borough, and particularly for his constituency, as he rightly points out.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the European funds. As he was the first to mention, a large amount of European funds have been invested in deprived parts of Enfield. The total grant awarded to projects delivered in the borough is just under £3.5 million. Additionally, the borough has benefited from a proportion of the grant that is awarded to projects sub-regionally where Enfield forms part of the delivery area. The overall joint total for that is £38,221,000, although unfortunately I cannot state exactly how much of that money goes to Enfield borough or his constituency.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the European regional development fund. Funding from its 2007 to 2013 programme, now managed by the European programme management unit in the London Development Agency, cannot be used to provide infrastructure, although it can support related supply-chain activity. As he will know, ERDF projects need to have match funding from elsewhere. As LDA funds are substantially committed, including for activity connected with the Olympics, I understand that only four out of 67 applications for funding submitted to the EPMU in the first ERDF application round in spring 2008 originated from other parts of the LDA. That was due to a lack of match funding.
	The borough's local area agreement, "Every Child Really Does Matter", was signed off in 2006-07, and it included a set of stretching reward targets. If those targets are achieved by the end of the three-year period, Enfield will receive £9.6 million in reward grant. Those additional funds can be used to tackle deprivation. Again, the challenge is to reach out to people from an early age, and again, it is a generational challenge.

Andrew Love: May I focus my hon. Friend's attention on the London-wide aspect of local area agreements? Many of the problems that we face in Enfield are related to the wider London context—worklessness, for example. Many of the people coming into Enfield from other places and from other parts of the world do not have the skills necessary to gain employment and therefore remain workless. We need support to address the intensity of the problems that we face.

Parmjit Dhanda: I entirely agree. In his speech, my hon. Friend issued a challenge—he said that he wanted to be able to come and knock on my door or on other doors in the Department. I would be delighted to take up that offer, to see what specific assistance we can give him.
	Let me say a little about local area agreements, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The challenge and drive of the new local area agreements could be the key. As he knows, money is not the only solution to the complex challenges that his constituency faces. As a Government, we are making a real difference by enabling a change in the way key local service providers and communities work together to deliver more efficient and, I hope, better local public services. The partnership approach has to be the way forward, and I believe Enfield takes that seriously.
	I mentioned the new local area agreements—the new performance framework for local government, which was outlined in the White Paper "Strong and Prosperous Communities". That framework is about improving the quality of life and improving public services. It brings together national standards and priorities set by Government and local priorities developed by the local authority and its partners.
	The Government have significantly increased local authorities' flexibility in the use of their mainstream resources by moving more than £4 billion of grants into the new non-ring-fenced area based grant. That is the key—the fact that Government are encouraging local government to cut out some of the bureaucracy that it has had to face in the past and meet the challenges that most affect local communities. That will minimise the barriers to local authorities using their mainstream resources to support local priorities where they wish to do so. For Enfield and Edmonton, those local priorities are the ones that my hon. Friend eloquently described. From 1 April 2008, those funds are allocated on a three-year basis to maximise stability and provide longer-term certainty.
	Area based grant is a general grant allocated directly to local authorities as additional revenue funding. It is allocated according to specific policy criteria, rather than general formulae. Local authorities are free to use all of that non-ring-fenced funding as they see fit to support the delivery of local, regional and national priorities in their areas. Of the £4 billion national area based grant allocation, Enfield will receive about £15.8 million. As central Government no longer dictate to the local authority how much should be spent on each initiative, strategic decisions about how to spend the money will be made at local level and depend on local priorities. I urge local authorities to work with and listen to local Members of Parliament when deciding where best to place those resources.
	I know that time is running short so I will conclude my remarks by saying that my hon. Friend has made an important contribution and I will continue to do all I can to help and support him. Our door is always open to him.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Seven o'clock.